One of how many? If it didn't make sense the first time, why would you repeat the same ridiculous request?
Behaving like civilized people and not killing one another is the way to go. Fair play, though, you have a terrible historical backlog.
No one intends to kill another person when they go to the store for milk. If they choose to carry a gun, they do so to prevent harm to themselves. I do not intent to play fair. If someone comes at me with a knife I have no intentions of pulling a knife, I will use the best tool to preserve my own well being. Your argument makes very little sense.
One example of a qual is 18 shots at 7 yards, 12 at 15 yards and 12 at 25 yards, using a 5-4-1 scoring system and an overall 70% being passing? That qual is still pretty easy (although I do know shooters who can't quite make it.) Would you be comfortable with military qualification? Basically if 16 of 40 tear paper, all at under 25 yards, the person is qualified. I could be wrong, but I get the impression your standards are higher than police standards actually are.
It would depend greatly on the size of the target..... a dinner plate size target would be acceptible in my eyes with your police scoring, however a man size target not so much. I certainly do not expect people to shoot as I do, however I find peppering a man sized target at three and five yards to be an inexcusable lack of marksmanship. To pepper a target with slow controlled fire is just beyond words, and poses a danger to everyone around him should have draw that firearm. Even at my tactical pistol/rifle course I put all of my shots in center of mass despite shooting in very odd angles, literally shooting from the hip, running to cover, etc. etc. I certainly do not expect anyone to go through a course such as the one I took, all I ask for is basic marksmanship.
Speaking of police, a report done by the police policy council indicated that police really are not very accurate in a shootout. Over a ten year span from 90-00 the numbers are not real great. Average rounds fired by police per shooting were 5.2 rounds, with a 15% hit probability. http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf Now if our law enforcement officers are faring no better than this with all of the range time they are allowed, about how much training should the government mandate to all who wish to protect themselves?
True, but there is no way around the fact that "unskilled" CCW license holder's are not causing problems either.....
The target they use is a standard human-sized target. The 5 is center of mass and the head, the 4 runs a little over halfway to the edge, the 1 is when you just tear paper. Yes, they have standards, but if you are a halfway decent marksman, you can easily score very well and if you can hit a garbage can lid at 15 yards, you will pass the test.
Those who carry guns intend to kill, so everyone carries guns, so your murder-rate goes up and up. The argument is it makes you somehow 'free', but disciplined troops will always wipe out a bandit rabble. You are killing to give gunmakers profits, and it has nothing to do with 'self-defence'.
Incompetent shooters are a problem, with or without innocent deaths. Is there some undisclosed benefit to allowing incompetent shooters to carry loaded firearms in public? Is there something that may benefit CCW as a whole? Or do you think that maybe reserving the permitting process for competent shooters would make CCW laws look a bit more favorable?
I have no intent to kill, and I am not killing to create profits for gun manufactures. Now go play along, the adults are having a discussion.
If they are man sized targets, then I would dismiss the military standards as a bit loose. A trash can lid at 15yds. is exceedingly easy. lol
The military standards are very loose. The main goal is for members to be able to operate their weapon and have a reasonable chance of occasionally hitting their target. Handguns aren't our primary weapon, so the standards are pretty loose. Regardless, I'd be fine with reasonable marksmanship standards for CCW holders, probably more relaxed, such as a 50% rate of tearing paper at 25 yards. I wouldn't support such requirements for open carry.
Out of curiosity, what are the standards for the rifle? My woman friend's brother is in the Marines and is an "expert" with the M16. Seems that he can shoot very well, said he can hit a man sized target at 500 meters, open sights. True, however a slight critique on my part, I would prefer the requirement be performed at a closer range with a higher percentage of hits. My understandings is that very few self-defensive engagements occur at distances that exceed seven yards. I would like to see a high hit ratio on a man sized target at three, five, and seven yards. I would support such requirements for open carry, they are essentially carrying for self-defense. I am not a real big fan of open carry, I do not see it as an ideal means of self-defense, so I didn't focus on that too much.
Adults are you, be(*)(*)(*)(*)! I understood that all cowboys over ten had to go and shoot one another at the OK Corral, or be condemned to go and massacre some schoolchildren or such, to prove their manhood. Sad bloody country! Pity - produces some quite decent people, like Australia, but I suppose those are the ones who escape!
Ayuh,..... Yer babblin' again, 'n makin' No sense at all.... which I guess is expected,.... carry on....
You keep implying that it is a problem but have yet to show that it truly is, other than someone in your class failed to pattern well on a target. We let police carry all the time, do you see police as a benefit? They have been proven to be incompetent in real world shootings time and time again. They have shoot and killed unarmed citizen they thought were carrying a weapon, their stray bullets have injured and killed innocent bystanders, all while having hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds down at the range. So exactly how proficient do you want CCW carriers to be? And if the government training our officers go through still leaves them unprepared for combat, how do you figure it will fare better for our CCW carrying citizens, who are not shooting innocent unarmed people? Yes, leaving the current system as is. No I do not think it would look more favorable. I believe the unintended consequence of your mandatory training would result in less people carrying CCW, and since these people have not created a problem, I see no need to try and solve it. If it aint broke ..
The mere fact that incompetent shooters carry guns is a problem. Your failure to understand this exceedingly simply concept is inexcusable. So because a few police officers make mistakes, you discount the idea of training? Jesus Christ. Simple question, I want a direct answer. I shoot my pistol often, I practice often, is it all in vain? Or is the training beneficial?
What problems? You keep implying that untrained CCW carriers are a problem, yet you fail to show any problems. Very beneficial for putting them in the 10 ring, no guarantees on how you will respond to a life threatening situation.
You intentionally oblivious. Just because no one has died does not mean it is not a problem. I have said that more than once. Please refrain from commenting with another "well, no one has died, so its not a problem until someone is lays dead on the street". Incompetent shooters are alone a problem. No one needs to die for you to acknowledge this problem. Again, a dodge. It is common knowledge that a persons fine motor skills decrease in a life threatening situation. However training will help compensate for the loss of skills. A higher trained person will perform more effectively in the said situation. A person with moderate training, less so. A person with no training, well, they are danger to themselves and everyone around them. So either training is a benefit. Or it is not. It is not both. It is not a difficult question to answer.