Ok I get it, we will all be much safer if the Government would pass more laws to protect us from these "unqualified" gun packers that are not harming anyone...
Of course, because arming people who can't shoot worth a (*)(*)(*)(*) is the right thing to do. Let the rabbits wear glasses!
Ayuh,.... I donno.... Over the years, I've shot informal targets with a few Leos,.... Some of their "Skills" were quite Shocking, to an ole maineiac from the big woods... Ya can't fix Stupid,... Guns just prove that fact alittle quicker than some of the other tools in our lives....
My reason for wanting no requirement for marksmanship for open carry is the same as any restriction on constitutional rights. It is like requiring a person take an English test to speak freely or to get a government license to publish a news flyer. Still, I have no problem with such requirements for concealed carry. As for the handgun requirements, I could agree with your idea, maybe a 75-80% hit ratio at <10 yards. I agree, if you can't hit your target in that range, you need more practice. The rifle qualifications vary a bit between the branches. The army uses a long-range field with human popup targets at 50 meter intervals between 50 and 300 meters. You have to hit 23 of 40 targets to qualify, with targets occasionally popping up two at a time. The Air Force still uses the standard 25 meter short range target: You fire 50 rounds in groups of ten, changing magazines twice in each group. Each group is done from a different basic firing position - prone, over-barricade, etc. The last group is shot wearing the gas mask. Anything that tears black is a hit. The standards vary depending on your job, but the lowest standards require 19 of 50 to pass. The strictest group still only requires 32 hits to pass. All of the above are done with either iron sights or red-dot, depending on the situation. I have no experience with the marine or navy standards, so I can't tell you what those are like. In the end, our standards aren't strict, but many of our jobs have a very low likelihood of ever needing to fire a weapon in combat, so it makes little sense to spend a lot of time and expense training such personnel in shooting.
I have already answered more than one. I do not see the point is pointing out the excruciating obvious another time. Allowing incompetent persons to carry guns will simply lead to the end of CCW. It is in our own interests to weed out the fools.
I'm going to openly admit I did not read every post in this thread, so I may be off point here and if so, I apologize. Referring to a beginner as incompetent is one thing (they're beginners, not everyone is competent the first time they attempt something). Indirectly calling this same group fools is another. Just because someone doesn't have the same level of skill does not mark them a fool and I'm extending skill to all areas of firearm ownership, from cleaning to shooting and beyond. Its all a learned skill. The other side of this is people who are indeed foolish and irresponsible. That however is no reflection on skill. I've personally met many skilled people in various trades, and a few skilled shooters who were frankly irresponsible when it came to safety. They were good at the usage of their tools, but they weren't exactly what I would call the safest person with them; sometimes skill lends a degree of over confidence and complacency which can lead to dangerous situations. I guess the question is, if a person is inaccurate should we bar them from a form of personal defense until they meet some arbitrary (and it is arbitrary) level of skill? Remember, we're talking skill here; do not confuse it with making the decision to draw and fire your weapons in any given defensive situation or handling that weapons in a safe manner. Safety is part of the skill set, but accuracy does not weigh in on it at all. Safety courses on the other hand are nice, but as a requirement I'm not convinced simply because an X-hour safety course can only teach safe handling, it can not ensure it. The irresponsible will be irresponsible.
Accuracy is a safety issue though, if someone is inaccurate and unskilled at the range, it will be worse still in a stressful situation. If someone is unable to hit their target in a no stress situation, there is little reason to believe their will hit their target in a high stress situation. They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them should they decide to draw and fire their weapon.
It takes a lot of time and money to train an average person off the street how to shoot much better than that, especially someone who has never even touched a firearm before. It just isn't worth the time and effort to train every military member to higher standards, especially considering that the majority of them will only fire a weapon during training anyway.
Two follow up points here: 1. The case you present of accuracy being a safety issue, though true to a degree; it is probably not the largest safety issue present in the lifespan of the majority of individuals that conceal or open carry. 2. The typical case of day-to-day carry is individual safe handling and responsibility of one's own actions. The key here is the last part of this sentence, responsibility of one's own actions. This means, and hopefully it never occurs, you ever do have to draw and fire your weapons, you take responsibility for each of the rounds that you fire. If you're like me, you practice as much as possible to limit your own liability if that day ever comes. I'm not arguing that accuracy is not a good thing to have, I'm arguing that it should not be the measure in determining if someone should be allowed to carry for defensive purposes. I'd also argue that a single training course to prove limited accuracy is generally not a good measurement either. If some one qualifies once then doesn't practice again at the range, your accuracy requirement hasn't really helped anything as accuracy, as stated previously, is a skill that must be kept up on. I don't know what a better measure is, or if there is one to begin with, but to say accuracy is a measurement of someone's ability to safely carry; I believe this to be a misguided statement. Now, all of this said, I think courses to boost and enhance your 'software' are great. I'm all for courses on accuracy, technique, and safety - they're great investments. I don't believe we need to force these things down peoples throats though. Simply put, keeping the individual accountable for their actions with strict repercussions I think would be far more effective over the long run.
True, however, largely irrelevant to my argument. The perceived threat that justifies the need for CCW is hardly justified. The odds of any instance requiring the use of a firearm is exceedingly low. However, that certainly is not a reason to dismiss the idea of CCW. Nor is it a good reason to dismiss the idea of having trained persons carrying firearms. I would agree, however the issue is that an incompetent shooter endangers other people. Whether or not the shooter is held accountable is largely irrelevant, because there is not a requirement to be proficient. Being held responsible is great. But doesn't undo the damage of a hurdling bullet into a crowd. The only way to ensure this is to make it a mandate. I know responsible CCW holders who share my mindset. Then I know completely irresponsible people who just so happen to carry a CCW permit. They don't care. It is their perceived right to carry that gun wherever. The only way to weed them out and protect the rights of the responsible is by mandate.
Actually it's complete relevant to your argument because your argument of accuracy requirements is /only/ applicable to to the case of a confrontation where a weapon has to be drawn and fired. My final comments on this topic are simply these: As I argued previously, I don't believe a mandate around accuracy would have much of an impact generally on the safety of concealed carriers as it only impacts (as stated above and reinforced by you) the exceedingly low chance of having to use your firearm. The mandate also does not completely remove the possibility of a stray shot going into a crowd. I believe there have even been studies done on police departments in the past that show a high ratio misses vs rounds fired in some cases. Simply put, I don't believe in forcing of a particular set of arbitrary accuracy requirements on people will be very beneficial. Who knows, it may actually be detrimental by way of corruption and twisting that these mandates sometimes have (ex. high costs keeping courses away from specific groups of people, nonavailability of courses to control the number of carriers per year, etc...). Hold someone accountable for their actions, make the consequences well known, and people may start to think about their life choices a bit more closely, including if they should carry and how much they should practice to reduce the chances of having to deal with those consequences.
Irresponsible is letting other folk define the limits of an individuals rights, especially as so very few CC folk ever commit crimes (way below the levels found in the general population)...
'Incompetent shooters' (as defined by you), carrying loaded arms in pubic (without incident) IS by definition a non problem...
I am reminded of a state senator in Maine proposing and demanding a ban on the evil and dangerous 50 cal rifle threat. He said on the radio that a simple Google search would reveal hundreds of thousands of reports of actual misuse of the weapon...I spent an afternoon researching the claim. Yes, I found over 300,000 google hits. I checked the first twenty pages of responses and found that the 200 or so I checked all came back to three events over the past 20 years, WACO, the Colorado armored bulldozer story and another from Colorado that goes back to before the internet. I then tracked down the final ATF or state police disposition of the cases and found that no 50Cal rifle was found in any case, despite the thousands of reports by the press during the event. None, not a one... It was a non problem being hyped simply to expand government gun control so as to make some lefties all warm and comfortable while having no effect on crime or safety at all and pissing off the owners to no good reason.
Perhaps we need proficiency tests for utilizing the internet as the damage a thread like this could cause is far more then any imaginary damage from your fear.
But the murder rate is going down and down, as it has steadily over the last two decades while gun ownership goes up and up...
Sounds alot like the "EVIL TEFLON COATED BULLETS"....aka cop killer bullets, black talons so on and so forth. Always some narcissistic lefty wanting to pat him/her self on the back for solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Hahaha.... little do they realize the Winchester Rangers (?) are essentially Black Talons without the black coating.
Of course. Incompetent shooters are a non-problem until they accidentally kill someone, then CCW will be on the line. Let the rabbits wear glasses! lol This thread is not a 200gr. projectile traveling at 500ftps. into an innocent bystander. Learn to draw logical comparisons.
I'm guessing, since we're talking CCW, you're carrying either a .45 ACP or .44 Mag at 200 grain (most common I can think of). I hope you're not talking FPS at even 100 yards at this point - otherwise I'd suggest you rethink your loading for self defense purposes. ^_-
