Constitutional Carry Update?

The number of firearm related injuries in Alaska is truthfully much higher... they just don't find the bodies.
 
I am still here just don't sit in front of the computer all day. This is where I stand, I do not think you should have to have a license to carry a gun. But I do think if you carry a gun out in public concealed or exposed that there should be mandatory safety class and proficiency in shooting. Most of us here have been around firearms most of our lives, and we have showed our children proper gun safety as your parents probably did to you as well, and for those who didn't you probably took the initiative to learn yourself. But there are many people who do not have the benefit of being raised in a family surrounded by firearms and learning proper training. There are many people who purchase their first firearm and would just start carrying it they would not have a clue about safety and they might not be able to shoot it accurately proficiently. We have all been to shooting ranges, are you going to tell me you have never seen people there shooting that have no clue about gun safety, But yet they have guns they shoot their guns but never took the initiative to learn about safety, these are the people who need to take a class before they start carrying out in public. I apologize for calling somebody a know it all. Knowing what you know about firearms would you just hand a pistol to your daughter if you never showed her gun safety and how it operates and actually see if she can hit a target which could be the difference in saving her life, or possibly miss her target and hit an innocent bystander and have to suffer the consequences of the tragedy . Not everybody has the benefit of being surrounded by friends or family who can teach them proper gun safety, and some people would not spend the money regardless of how much it is to learn. And I still stand by this the more gun safety education people have the fewer accident.
 
forward assist said:
The number of firearm related injuries in Alaska is truthfully much higher... they just don't find the bodies.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, your cite for this is yourself, because you still have the shovel? :mrgreen:


Wylie said:
This is where I stand, I do not think you should have to have a license to carry a gun. But I do think if you carry a gun out in public concealed or exposed that there should be mandatory safety class and proficiency in shooting.
Click to expand...

Rhetorical question: How would one prove they took the mandatory safety class?
 
yeah, the mandatory driving classes work so well. people take them after a dui and still drink and drive.

with carrying a gun if you dont understand that there is a danger then you are just stupid, drinking and driving, drunk.

havent we all, we that have been shooting enthueasts from youth, read saftey rules enough to know the dangers?

i dont know about a soccer mom buying her first gun at 35, but i dont believe i need to be told to take this class and be this proficient.

soccer mom is free to drive her suv 100 mph because it will but does she? give her a little credit to learn gun saftey.
 
hell, i dont know.

im not giving up my guns and im not taking a class to prove myself after 48 years.
 
Wylie said:
But I do think if you carry a gun out in public concealed or exposed that there should be mandatory safety class and proficiency in shooting
Click to expand...

I am trying to establish something here; I'm not trying to insult you or be condescending.

Do you feel that the SC CWP course actually demonstrates a shooter's handgun proficiency? I personally don't. 35 rounds out of 50 is passing, and those hits can be achieved at 7 yards and closer (point blank range) on a 19" wide and roughly 36" tall target. The test itself, which proves proficiency in the laws regarding carrying, the tests are conducted as an instructor-led, group effort. It is almost impossible to fail this course. I would agree with MCA that the course is indeed "silly" in the sense that the requirements are not very stringent, which I believe is how it was meant.
 
11B3XCIB said:
Wylie said:
But I do think if you carry a gun out in public concealed or exposed that there should be mandatory safety class and proficiency in shooting
Click to expand...

I am trying to establish something here; I'm not trying to insult you or be condescending.

Do you feel that the SC CWP course actually demonstrates a shooter's handgun proficiency? I personally don't. 35 rounds out of 50 is passing, and those hits can be achieved at 7 yards and closer (point blank range) on a 19" wide and roughly 36" tall target. The test itself, which proves proficiency in the laws regarding carrying, the tests are conducted as an instructor-led, group effort. It is almost impossible to fail this course. I would agree with MCA that the course is indeed "silly" in the sense that the requirements are not very stringent, which I believe is how it was meant.
Click to expand...

I don't think that taking the class is going to make people be safer with guns. I think the best thing about the class is that it teaches the laws regarding carrying (I haven't taken it yet but that's what I understand from reading about the class). I think it would be better to simplify the laws, and require gun stores pass out a brochure with the laws on it when someone buys a gun.

Different guns shoot differently. If I take the class with a peashooter and then go buy a .45, having taken the class doesn't mean squat as far as proficiency. If we wanted to require proficiency then we'd need to take the class with the gun we carry as well as demonstrate some sort of regular training. And no, I don't want the government requiring that.
 
I'd be careful about relying too heavily on the folks who teach this course to provide accurate information about the laws.

In addition to the shooting part of the course not being difficult to pass, the instructor I was forced to fork over $150 to, felt the need to keep adjusting my grip. I was eating a hole though the middle of the giant silhouette and he kept trying to get me to shoot a different way, like there is a single approved method and everyone's hands are the same size.

I want a refund every time I think about the silly course!

If Wylie is still interested, I'd really like to know who teaches new gun owners what to do and what not to do in states where the government doesn't mandate a course. Any idea?
 
11b, i agree.

i took the class to get my CWP. you are right it is minimal at best.

i learned more about saftey, ADs, not listening to instructions, shooting, accuracy, reloading, all gun related stuff, shooting with a club, IPSC. now there is IDPA. thats where you learn proficiency. in my opinion. i would fire 5 or 6 hundred rds/month in practise for the match and then 60 about at the match.

i do not say i know it all but that was a great learning experience. rain or shine, hot or cold, one match a month and i missed 1 match in 8 years because of my boss at work.
 
Wylie and people opposed to constitutional carry cannot provide any data to back up their claims because it does not exist.

Let's address the concerns individually, though.

Ok, first, the mandatory training is NOT a tactical shooting class. A real defensive pistol class will be 2-3 days and a few hundred rounds. So let's dispense with that idea right off the bat.

Next, I don't care if you die because you lose your gun fight. It is not my problem if you failed to prepare yourself for the worst day of your life. I want you to have the tools and training and mindset to succeed... but if you don't bother to get that training and a street thug kills or rapes you, it is simply not my problem.

I am not worried about people having numerous negligent discharges in public places. We have a huge data pool from the states that allow unlicensed open carry or have Constitutional Carry and this is simply not a problem. There is zero data to support the idea that there is a significant increase in bystanders hit by marginally trained people if you allow unlicensed open carry or constitutional carry. Even if you want to believe that the CDC has falsified the accidental gun death rate in Alaska, South Carolina's accidental fatality rate is twice the national average. In the extremely rare case that a negligent discharge occurs, the dumbass responsible faces a huge number of civil and criminal charges for their negligent act.

Finally if there is an Active Shooter and Joe Sixpack is a terrible shot with risk of hitting bystanders, I prefer a messy two-way gunfight to a one-sided massacre. Sure, the Colorado Theater Massacre and VA Tech massacre were awful, about as bad a situation as one can envision; how could things be any worse by inserting a poorly trained armed good guy? I'd take my chances with Joe Sixpack returning inaccurate unaimed fire and accept the risk of being hit by a stray bullet rather than waiting my turn to be executed by a pyschopath.

Those who love mandatory training and fees do realize that the permits come out of the Jim Crow era, where they were passed out in a discriminatory manner, right? Klan members who were friends of the sheriff got permits, and uppity blacks did not. That's the ugly history behind "a little safety training." The attitude is alive and well today, even in the era of "shall issue" (which SC was one of the last states to adopt, by the way) -- when I got printed for my SC permission slip, the lady at the police department (which has a black sheriff, mind you!) remarked about Alaska Carry, "Well, how do you keep 'those people' from carrying guns up there?" The implication was crystal clear. Even in shall issue, to pass the written test you need to be a proficient native English speaker and you need some disposable income and time -- how is that any different from a literacy test and poll tax being required to engage in what is a specifically enumerated constitutional right?

The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Those who support restrictions on that right need to bring up specific data that necessitates governmental interference and they need to justify their proposed restrictions with actual data showing that the restrictions are effective and narrowly tailored. I have seen a lot of hand wringing and hysteria from politicians and posters on this board alike, but precious little data to defend the necessity of a Jim Crow era system.
 
I would guess that better than 90% of people with carry permits have no formal training other than the concealed class required to try the license.
that being said...
Most of YOU reading this have not been trained enough to deal with a live shoot-no shoot situation.
so what makes you think you are capable of doing it?
Were you born with some innate ability that others aren't?
do you think that if you use your weapon in a situation a a innocent person is killed by a miss or a pass through that you should be held responsible?
You see, I would prefer it be taken out of the governments hands.
People who carry should be bonded and insured the insurance company setting forth the training requirements .
I don't much like the idea of my child, sitting in Starbucks, being shot but someone who thought he was doing right by pulling his weapon on a robber.
 
The ingredients in coffee don't disturb me as much as the concoction in soda.

Also there's more caffeine in tea than coffee. I wouldn't imagine you have ever seen a teenager drinking iced tea?

My children will always be my children, even when 40 years old.

Not sure the relevance to the discussion, but, yes.
 
...wow.

Try taking some of the logic here and applying it to other enumerated rights. The results become amusing very quickly.
 
forward assist said:
I would guess that better than 90% of people with carry permits have no formal training other than the concealed class required to try the license.
that being said...
Most of YOU reading this have not been trained enough to deal with a live shoot-no shoot situation.
so what makes you think you are capable of doing it?
Were you born with some innate ability that others aren't?
do you think that if you use your weapon in a situation a a innocent person is killed by a miss or a pass through that you should be held responsible?
You see, I would prefer it be taken out of the governments hands.
People who carry should be bonded and insured the insurance company setting forth the training requirements .
I don't much like the idea of my child, sitting in Starbucks, being shot but someone who thought he was doing right by pulling his weapon on a robber.
Click to expand...



And who the heck are you to tell me how much training I have.... I would be willing to bet you would be surprised how much training some of us on this forum have..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Random media

IMG_0134.JPG
1553264775383.png
4C00DB44-AB6C-4E26-94A5-DF44B28C07F3.jpeg
60BEC564-0203-4DD5-9C72-22442D88C734.jpeg
1669837674361.png
IMG_20190309_203613440.jpg
IMG_3240.jpeg
Back
Top