When you took your CCL course...

[Jeffrey]

 

 

I'm not sure I'm completely correct on this and a better instructor can chime in, but if you miss the target 10 times as stated above, you'd not qualify iirc!

 

 

I was off by one, it's 21/30 that must be qualifying hits. So you can flat out miss 9 times. Still a bit of a "Yikes! This person gets to carry a loaded gun in public??"

That's the liberal way of thinking right there.

 

How accurate were you the first time you ever picked up a handgun and had to shoot at a target 10 yards away?

 

Also, many states require much less (if any) training than Illinois, yet you don't read about CCL holders wildly lobbing bullets off into the ether, hitting everyone except their intended target, do ya?

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

Agreed. But also consistent with the "liberal way of thinking," the OP said "Just my view on it, and since I know a lot of you will disagree, there's no need to get into a viewpoint clash over it." The OP has no doubt about proper gun rights. And he thinks the reason the 2nd Amendment was written was because there were no standing armies!

 

Based on the U.S. Constitution, the OP's comments are so wrong I'm thinking he's a troll.

 

bingo

[BigJim]

OP should there be mandatory civics tests before someone can exercise the right to vote? Look at the damage that was done to this country by the uneducated masses that voted for Obama two elections in a row!

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

[Hipshot Percussion]

 

I'm not sure I'm completely correct on this and a better instructor can chime in, but if you miss the target 10 times as stated above, you'd not qualify iirc!

 

 

I was off by one, it's 21/30 that must be qualifying hits. So you can flat out miss 9 times. Still a bit of a "Yikes! This person gets to carry a loaded gun in public??"

There are lots of idiotic posts made in public forums, but this one continues to stick in my craw. "gets to carry a loaded gun in public?" Really?! The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is, should a person's ability to meet an arbitrarily defined set of standards have any impact on whether or not they have a right to defend their own lives? Has it occurred to you that holding a view that differentiates one person from another based solely on physical differences is no less discriminatory than believing people are more or less worthy based on their DNA. Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you don't. Comments like this tend to betray those beliefs, even if you're unaware of them.

 

Agree completely. I would pose this question to the OP - Imagine a person who doesn't carry, own or ever fired a gun. That person is attacked by 4 guys and is being beaten to death. As his life is bleeding out of him, he discovers a gun on the ground (dropped by one of the perpetrators). So you're saying he shouldn't be able to pick it up and defend himself against certain death because he's never had training?

[Bubbacs]

How scared was it before legal carry when you never knew if the person near you was armed or not?

People, some good guys and lots of bad guys were armed with handguns and never took a safety class or had to shoot at a target!

 

But then it still goes on everyday in Chicago and Cook County.

Not to say other places don't have a share of these issues.

 

But being scared of people who are making an attempt to shoot and be safe should not be who you're afraid of.

It's the unknown person who hasn't taken classes or doesn't care about safety.

 

The chances of ever seeing someone who is carrying legal and then being in the line of fire or even near them when they would need to pull their handgun are so astronomical that my guess is getting hit by lightning is more a chance for most if not all of us.

 

My concern isn't the near 300,000 carriers in Illinois.

It's in my situational awareness and the knowledge in my mind that I'm doing everything I can to safely defend myself and family if ever needed.

[papa]

All I can say to the OP is this. Don't ever , ever go into Indiana because they have never required any kind of training to carry a firearm for protection. I'm sure with that many people carrying with no training there has to be many people getting shot accidentally every day.

 

Funny that the news doesn't ever say anything about it happening.

[ArmedWithKnowledge]

 

I'm not sure I'm completely correct on this and a better instructor can chime in, but if you miss the target 10 times as stated above, you'd not qualify iirc!

 

 

I was off by one, it's 21/30 that must be qualifying hits. So you can flat out miss 9 times. Still a bit of a "Yikes! This person gets to carry a loaded gun in public??"

There are lots of idiotic posts made in public forums, but this one continues to stick in my craw. "gets to carry a loaded gun in public?" Really?! The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is, should a person's ability to meet an arbitrarily defined set of standards have any impact on whether or not they have a right to defend their own lives? Has it occurred to you that holding a view that differentiates one person from another based solely on physical differences is no less discriminatory than believing people are more or less worthy based on their DNA. Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you don't. Comments like this tend to betray those beliefs, even if you're unaware of them.

 

I'm not sure how you think a proficiency requirement would be an arbitrary number. Would you want someone to operate on you if their average test scores were 60 out of 100 questions correct? By your logic that would be just as arbitrary. Arbitrary implies no reasoning behind it, just chosen at random. Having proficiency standards isn't remotely the same. Did you really just compare the idea of thinking there should be proficiency requirements in order to carry a gun in public to discriminating against people because of their DNA? In what world does that make any sense at all? Not being rhetorical here, I really would like it if you would explain your logic.

[ArmedWithKnowledge]

 

Agreed. But also consistent with the "liberal way of thinking," the OP said "Just my view on it, and since I know a lot of you will disagree, there's no need to get into a viewpoint clash over it." The OP has no doubt about proper gun rights. And he thinks the reason the 2nd Amendment was written was because there were no standing armies!

 

Based on the U.S. Constitution, the OP's comments are so wrong I'm thinking he's a troll.

 

And what pray-tell is the "liberal way of thinking?" And you're absolutely right, I have no doubt about proper gun rights, and nothing I've said is a viewpoint that is infringing upon them. Actually, it was. You bring up the Constitution, but you don't seem to have knowledge of when it was even written. Do you define being a troll as someone who holds a different viewpoint than you and asks what other people think? If so, then I guess I am, though I always thought trolls were folks who stirred up trouble just to cause conflict, not people who were interested in other people's opinions and constructive dialogue/debate. But I guess other peoples ideas can be scary when yours are only supported by emotions.

 

Oh, and for reference the Continental Army was created on 14 June 1775 by the Continental Congress (to fight the revolutionary war), then disbanded by the Congress of the Confederation so they could create the United States Army on 3 June 1784. HOWEVER, while this predates the ratification of the first 10 amendments by 7 years, the creation of the United States Army is a separate issue and a totally different concept than a "standing army", a standing army being composed of full-time soldiers (who may be either career soldiers or conscripts) and is not disbanded during times of peace.

And since we're on the subject of the 2nd...

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Something that always amazes me, is that folks like yourself seem to completely ignore that first half of the sentence, i.e. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". I'm not trying to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun or carry one, for crying out loud I own a couple and I have my CCL, so clearly I'm not against it. I simply think that this sort of thing should be, as our founders seem to imply..."WELL REGULATED". But hey, if you wanna scream "Liberal thinker!" and get all "up in arms" (forgive the pun, I couldn't help myself) then by all means. It's a free country after all

 

 

[ArmedWithKnowledge]

 

 

I'm not sure I'm completely correct on this and a better instructor can chime in, but if you miss the target 10 times as stated above, you'd not qualify iirc!

 

 

I was off by one, it's 21/30 that must be qualifying hits. So you can flat out miss 9 times. Still a bit of a "Yikes! This person gets to carry a loaded gun in public??"

There are lots of idiotic posts made in public forums, but this one continues to stick in my craw. "gets to carry a loaded gun in public?" Really?! The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is, should a person's ability to meet an arbitrarily defined set of standards have any impact on whether or not they have a right to defend their own lives? Has it occurred to you that holding a view that differentiates one person from another based solely on physical differences is no less discriminatory than believing people are more or less worthy based on their DNA. Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you don't. Comments like this tend to betray those beliefs, even if you're unaware of them.

 

Agree completely. I would pose this question to the OP - Imagine a person who doesn't carry, own or ever fired a gun. That person is attacked by 4 guys and is being beaten to death. As his life is bleeding out of him, he discovers a gun on the ground (dropped by one of the perpetrators). So you're saying he shouldn't be able to pick it up and defend himself against certain death because he's never had training?

 

No, I'm not saying that, not even remotely. The fact that you got all that from what I actually did say...that might be more disturbing than my original observations that prompted me to start the thread in the first place.

[ArmedWithKnowledge]

OP should there be mandatory civics tests before someone can exercise the right to vote? Look at the damage that was done to this country by the uneducated masses that voted for Obama two elections in a row! Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uneducated masses? I think you might want to recheck those numbers. It's ok, I'll do it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/election-polls-vote-groups-2008.aspx

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

 

Huh, that's so weird...it seems like a lot more of the "educated" masses voted for Obama, whereas the "uneducated" masses voted for McCain/Romney. Facts are weird.

[Glock23]

For what it's worth, even the Supreme Court agreed that the militia statement is unrelated to one's right to keep and bear arms.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

 

[tkroenlein]

 

 

I'm not sure I'm completely correct on this and a better instructor can chime in, but if you miss the target 10 times as stated above, you'd not qualify iirc!

I was off by one, it's 21/30 that must be qualifying hits. So you can flat out miss 9 times. Still a bit of a "Yikes! This person gets to carry a loaded gun in public??"

 

 

There are lots of idiotic posts made in public forums, but this one continues to stick in my craw. "gets to carry a loaded gun in public?" Really?! The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is, should a person's ability to meet an arbitrarily defined set of standards have any impact on whether or not they have a right to defend their own lives? Has it occurred to you that holding a view that differentiates one person from another based solely on physical differences is no less discriminatory than believing people are more or less worthy based on their DNA. Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you don't. Comments like this tend to betray those beliefs, even if you're unaware of them.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you think a proficiency requirement would be an arbitrary number. Would you want someone to operate on you if their average test scores were 60 out of 100 questions correct? By your logic that would be just as arbitrary. Arbitrary implies no reasoning behind it, just chosen at random. Having proficiency standards isn't remotely the same. Did you really just compare the idea of thinking there should be proficiency requirements in order to carry a gun in public to discriminating against people because of their DNA? In what world does that make any sense at all? Not being rhetorical here, I really would like it if you would explain your logic.

The logic behind my statement is simple; the proficiency requirements are, IN FACT, arbitrarily defined, period. There was no study, no data analysis, never was, never is, never will be, because there is no empirical evidence that even suggests that the rate of negligent incidents rises when the requirements for proficiency decrease. Compare Illinois and similarly representative states' requirements to constitutional carry states. There is no difference. There are no measurable data sets in either.

 

And I absolutely did compare the infringement on 2A rights to the same kind of discrimination perpetrated against people because of their ethnicity. You either believe that every man, woman and child is by virtue of their humanity an equal or you do not. Constraining a person's basic human right to self defense based on a feeling that the public would be safer if they were a more skilled gun handler is not at all unlike prohibiting a black man from voting because you don't believe that he is qualified to assess the qualities that a politician ought to have to best serve the public interest.

[mauserme]

For what it's worth, even the Supreme Court agreed that the militia statement is unrelated to one's right to keep and bear arms. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

And that's why there's no sense in anyone trying to argue as if SCOTUS never addressed it, and it's equally pointless for pro-2A folks to argue the case again. It's decided. Period. End of story. The Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected to the military.

 

In Caetano, SCOTUS signaled that they have no interest in trying to reverse Heller and the cases that built on Heller. And they had that disinterest even after Justice Scalia's death.

 

So they are left with one option. Repeal it. Because trying to argue Heller again in the court of public opinion doesn't change the law, and the Second Amendment as an individual right is the law of the land whether some people disagree or not.

[BigJim]

 

OP should there be mandatory civics tests before someone can exercise the right to vote? Look at the damage that was done to this country by the uneducated masses that voted for Obama two elections in a row! Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

Uneducated masses? I think you might want to recheck those numbers. It's ok, I'll do it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/election-polls-vote-groups-2008.aspx

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

Huh, that's so weird...it seems like a lot more of the "educated" masses voted for Obama, whereas the "uneducated" masses voted for McCain/Romney. Facts are weird.

I don't care what title or degree someone has, if they voted for Obama they were stupid. Voting for him twice makes them ignorant.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

[Hipshot Percussion]

 

 

 

There are lots of idiotic posts made in public forums, but this one continues to stick in my craw. "gets to carry a loaded gun in public?" Really?! The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is, should a person's ability to meet an arbitrarily defined set of standards have any impact on whether or not they have a right to defend their own lives? Has it occurred to you that holding a view that differentiates one person from another based solely on physical differences is no less discriminatory than believing people are more or less worthy based on their DNA. Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you don't. Comments like this tend to betray those beliefs, even if you're unaware of them.

 

Agree completely. I would pose this question to the OP - Imagine a person who doesn't carry, own or ever fired a gun. That person is attacked by 4 guys and is being beaten to death. As his life is bleeding out of him, he discovers a gun on the ground (dropped by one of the perpetrators). So you're saying he shouldn't be able to pick it up and defend himself against certain death because he's never had training?

 

No, I'm not saying that, not even remotely. The fact that you got all that from what I actually did say...that might be more disturbing than my original observations that prompted me to start the thread in the first place.

 

No, what's disturbing is that you don't remember what you wrote.

 

"I just think there should be a reasonable aptitude test before you're allowed to go strolling around with a loaded weapon."

 

Or did I somehow read that wrong? You're advocating that people not be able to defend themselves with a gun unless they have had a "reasonable aptitude test". Your words... not mine. If that's what you believe, then the person in my scenario should not be able to use the gun to defend themselves.

[Illinois Sucks]

Wow.. a lot of people being hard on the OP. I don't think that he was implying that people shouldn't be allowed to carry but that they should probably (self) realize that it is unwise that they do till they are proficient and safe with a gun. I would liken this to defending yourself in a trial. While you certainly have the right to do this, it is never a good idea.

[OldMarineVet]

 

Agreed. But also consistent with the "liberal way of thinking," the OP said "Just my view on it, and since I know a lot of you will disagree, there's no need to get into a viewpoint clash over it." The OP has no doubt about proper gun rights. And he thinks the reason the 2nd Amendment was written was because there were no standing armies!

 

Based on the U.S. Constitution, the OP's comments are so wrong I'm thinking he's a troll.

And what pray-tell is the "liberal way of thinking?" And you're absolutely right, I have no doubt about proper gun rights, and nothing I've said is a viewpoint that is infringing upon them. Actually, it was. You bring up the Constitution, but you don't seem to have knowledge of when it was even written. Do you define being a troll as someone who holds a different viewpoint than you and asks what other people think? If so, then I guess I am, though I always thought trolls were folks who stirred up trouble just to cause conflict, not people who were interested in other people's opinions and constructive dialogue/debate. But I guess other peoples ideas can be scary when yours are only supported by emotions.

 

Oh, and for reference the Continental Army was created on 14 June 1775 by the Continental Congress (to fight the revolutionary war), then disbanded by the Congress of the Confederation so they could create the United States Army on 3 June 1784. HOWEVER, while this predates the ratification of the first 10 amendments by 7 years, the creation of the United States Army is a separate issue and a totally different concept than a "standing army", a standing army being composed of full-time soldiers (who may be either career soldiers or conscripts) and is not disbanded during times of peace.

And since we're on the subject of the 2nd...

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Something that always amazes me, is that folks like yourself seem to completely ignore that first half of the sentence, i.e. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". I'm not trying to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun or carry one, for crying out loud I own a couple and I have my CCL, so clearly I'm not against it. I simply think that this sort of thing should be, as our founders seem to imply..."WELL REGULATED". But hey, if you wanna scream "Liberal thinker!" and get all "up in arms" (forgive the pun, I couldn't help myself) then by all means. It's a free country after all

 

Happened to write about what you refer to the "first half" of the 2nd Amendment (it really doesn't have 2 parts...) in thread below (Post #12) Hope you don't mind if I just copy/paste it.

 

Thread:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=66412&hl=

 

========================================================

This isn't new. The left has been trying to spin the word "Militia" in the 2nd Amendment to their liking for many years.

 

In the 1700's, the word "militia" was synonymous with "community." Communities were tightly-knit. People were dependent on each other for survival instead of government. They pitched in to build each others' houses and helped each other with hunting and farming if need be. They pitched in to fight famine, fires, Indians, criminals, weather emergencies and anything else which threatened the community.

 

Replace the word "Militia" with the word "community" and it might feel more natural. A "well regulated" community? Communities/militias in the 1700's routinely practiced together. It was not unusual for a "well regulated Militia" to practice every Sunday after services next to the church. That "well regulated Militia" typically included the pastor.

 

After the Revolutionary War, people gradually created new institutions like police, fireman, medics, and standing armies. Today's neighborhood watches are a weak remnant of those strong 1700's communities who depended on each other so much. But, lately, decreases in funding are causing more and more towns to encouraging civilian volunteers in policing, firefighting, medical, and CERT (Community Emergency Response Teams.)

 

So the pendulum may be swinging back a bit. Here's 2 different Florida Sheriffs that seem to be ahead of the curve (just like they were with concealed carry.)

 

 

https://www.nratv.co...armed-and-ready

 

https://www.nratv.co...line-of-defense

[Smallbore]

In how many real life self defense shootings has the victim even had time to aquire sight alignment? (Or a flash sight picture) Maybe we all should prove adequate skill with a hip shot at 50 yards on a hockey puck. (30 out of 30 shots, of course)

[Elderberry]

Really...??? That's not what he said. (It is not my intention to be hard on the OP. Probably a great guy. HOWEVER). He advocated a "reasonable aptitude test" before someone can exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. And he did that on a forum that exists for the sole purpose of protecting those rights...

 

Obviously, he does not believe that the state of Illinois, with one of the more stringent requirements in the nation, has mandated that "reasonable aptitude test". I would then ask, which state he believes has...???

 

I would also be curious to know what standard he feels is adequate. I would also be curious to know what standard he feels is adequate for one to have rights under the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment...

 

It is named The Bill of RIGHTS for a reason -- to assure us all our unalienable rights are not predicated on the opinion of another citizen but rather on written, unambiguous law.,.

 

I say again -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why is that so difficult to understand...???

[geomick]

the term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with government control. "Regulated" = "made regular", that is equipped to the standard of the day.

 

When Paul Revere and the rest of the riders went out, they weren't shouting "the British are coming" (since they considered themselves just as British as those on the island), it was "the Regulars are coming".

[Elderberry]

Yup...

[skinnyb82]

I don't need to go to "Free Speech for Beginners" before I go call Obama the worst President in the history of the United States. I don't need to attend "Search and Seizure, Your Rights" before denying a cop consent to search my vehicle. So I shouldn't need to take a class before exercising my Second Amendment right to bear arms. It's a damn good idea to take classes, but the text doesn't mandate it any more than mandating that someone attend religious ceremonies of several religions before choosing "one." I don't need to attend a class before I'm entitled to due process, a trial by jury, whatever. Why would they put that Amendment in the Bill of Rights if it were contingent on...anything at all? The default status should be "You're qualified" rather than the inverse. No other right requires one to "prove" himself or herself prior to being "granted the permission" to exercising the right. I wanna tell a cop to get a, warrant? I tell a cop to get a warrant. I've had that right since I was born.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[sirflyguy]

the term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with government control. "Regulated" = "made regular", that is equipped to the standard of the day.

 

When Paul Revere and the rest of the riders went out, they weren't shouting "the British are coming" (since they considered themselves just as British as those on the island), it was "the Regulars are coming".

And the "regulation" part is almost always misused by those who think the 2A should be meddled with through, well, regulation as it is defined today by those who love when the government controls everything.

[sirflyguy]

I don't need to go to "Free Speech for Beginners" before I go call Obama the worst President in the history of the United States. I don't need to attend "Search and Seizure, Your Rights" before denying a cop consent to search my vehicle. So I shouldn't need to take a class before exercising my Second Amendment right to bear arms. It's a damn good idea to take classes, but the text doesn't mandate it any more than mandating that someone attend religious ceremonies of several religions before choosing "one." I don't need to attend a class before I'm entitled to due process, a trial by jury, whatever. Why would they put that Amendment in the Bill of Rights if it were contingent on...anything at all? The default status should be "You're qualified" rather than the inverse. No other right requires one to "prove" himself or herself prior to being "granted the permission" to exercising the right. I wanna tell a cop to get a, warrant? I tell a cop to get a warrant. I've had that right since I was born. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Bam. I typically (sarcastically, of course) use a similar line in my FCCL classes about going to a "free speech class" before exercising my right of free speech when comparing the 2A to all the other rights. I also tell all my students that I am all for taking all the good concealed carry or home defense training that a person can afford because they WANT to, not because the government mandates the training.

[WARFACE]

I bet the OP is sorry he asked his question now...lol. I did get a whiff of troll in the OP. Next case.

[Hipshot Percussion]

the term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with government control. "Regulated" = "made regular", that is equipped to the standard of the day.

 

When Paul Revere and the rest of the riders went out, they weren't shouting "the British are coming" (since they considered themselves just as British as those on the island), it was "the Regulars are coming".

Exactly -

 

The simplicity of the Second Amendment is in its wording. There are no extraneous or superfluous words or reasoning. It is bare bones, austere and elegant in it's simple message.

"A well regulated militia," as defined in parlance from 1789, meant a civilian military force, using arms in working order, functioning as expected, "being necessary to the security of a free State," States were expected to defend themselves against a tyrannical government militia, "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To ensure the ability to form the civilian militia, the people's Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the very government they may have to defend against.

 

Those who suggest the Founders had no idea what kind of weaponry would be available in the future are quite correct. And due to this inability to see into the future, the Founders did not restrict the arms the People could keep and bear. They understood that warfare and its machinations change, morph and advance, and by leaving the Second Amendment without restrictions, the People would always have access to the arms of the military they may be forced to defend against, allowing the People to fight against the very tyranny the Founding Fathers had just faced... and defeated.

 

The Second Amendment - 27 Words That Define a Nation

[jim123]

 

OP should there be mandatory civics tests before someone can exercise the right to vote? Look at the damage that was done to this country by the uneducated masses that voted for Obama two elections in a row! Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uneducated masses? I think you might want to recheck those numbers. It's ok, I'll do it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/election-polls-vote-groups-2008.aspx

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

 

Huh, that's so weird...it seems like a lot more of the "educated" masses voted for Obama, whereas the "uneducated" masses voted for McCain/Romney. Facts are weird.

 

I like that. Two out of three union geniuses said they voted for obama. One out of three of them lied about who they voted for.

[thobart]

Forget the politics and opinions. Please tell me that anyone who was in any situations that could case them great bodily harm can honestly say they would not want to protect themselves (regardless of training). Also would you want the most effective tool to do so? Again regardless of training. Is being a super ninja a requirement to defend yourself? Should you rely on other people to do it? What if nobody is around?

 

Violence happens when it happens

Violence happens to whom it happens

Violence happens where it happens

Violence does not care about your opinions

Violence has been happening since the beginning of time and does not show any signs of stopping

 

If you choose to get training great. If not you get what you put into it. I lower chance to survive violence. Everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves effectively.

 

All the other arguments are feelings and opinions.

[tdiller]

I'm getting ready to take my brand new Sig P238 to the range for the first time to break it in a bit (going after work today) and I'm going to be using the same police silhouette targets that are used for the CCL range qualification (ordered a box of them from Amazon). With this on my mind, it got me thinking back to when I did the range qualification.

Where I'm going with this train of thought is, I was truly shocked and appalled at the abysmal accuracy most of my fellow classmates displayed. Granted I was using a CZ 75 Compact as my gun (damn thing is a tack driver) and some of the other people had lesser handguns, but at the distances required for the qualification this shouldn't have made any difference (especially considering there was no time restriction on how fast you fired). For my part I had a ragged hole in the very center of the target, with one outlier that was still in the center area, just on the edge of the line for the innermost ring. I'm not bragging mind you, I was just so shocked at the lack of accuracy from the others. I did later learn that some of those people had never fired a handgun before, but many more of them had, multiple times in fact.

So what I'm building to is, did anyone else notice that their fellow CCL classmates were absolutely horrible shots? And did you find this even the least bit disturbing? I know I did. I mean these people were being licensed to carry a loaded gun in public, and they could barely hit the broadside of a barn in a VERY controlled situation. Can you imagine what would happen if they actually had to draw and fire? It's lucky that the vast majority of CCL holders will never even have to draw their weapon in a SD situation, let alone fire it.

Just something I was thinking about.

 

 

I had never fired much in the way of weapons until I joined the Navy. Wound up in the gunnery division on the ship. We were also part of the security when handling nuclear weapon so we had to go to the range to qualify on the 1911. The first time I went I got to bed early got up and had breakfast and on the bus to the range. I barely qualified. Six months later we had to do it again. I figured screw it. I was out all night drinking probably more drunk still than hungover on the range the next morning. Qualified easily. I'm one that tends to over analyze things and get nervous about it all. Then add a classroom full of others watching I probably wouldn't do very well myself. I haven't yet taken any of the courses or even thought about getting my permit. luckily I can practice at my own place before going for it.

[Bubbacs]

Drunk at the range, now there's a carry life experience that just needed to be shared with those on the fence......

[Gamma]

I'm getting ready to take my brand new Sig P238 to the range for the first time to break it in a bit (going after work today) and I'm going to be using the same police silhouette targets that are used for the CCL range qualification (ordered a box of them from Amazon). With this on my mind, it got me thinking back to when I did the range qualification.

Where I'm going with this train of thought is, I was truly shocked and appalled at the abysmal accuracy most of my fellow classmates displayed. Granted I was using a CZ 75 Compact as my gun (damn thing is a tack driver) and some of the other people had lesser handguns, but at the distances required for the qualification this shouldn't have made any difference (especially considering there was no time restriction on how fast you fired). For my part I had a ragged hole in the very center of the target, with one outlier that was still in the center area, just on the edge of the line for the innermost ring. I'm not bragging mind you, I was just so shocked at the lack of accuracy from the others. I did later learn that some of those people had never fired a handgun before, but many more of them had, multiple times in fact.

So what I'm building to is, did anyone else notice that their fellow CCL classmates were absolutely horrible shots? And did you find this even the least bit disturbing? I know I did. I mean these people were being licensed to carry a loaded gun in public, and they could barely hit the broadside of a barn in a VERY controlled situation. Can you imagine what would happen if they actually had to draw and fire? It's lucky that the vast majority of CCL holders will never even have to draw their weapon in a SD situation, let alone fire it.

Just something I was thinking about.

What it illustrates is that concealed carry does not equal "firearms enthusiast".

 

I know many serious firearms enthusiasts who have zero interest in carrying a firearm for personal protection.

 

There are even some firearms enthusiasts who have extensive experience with long guns, but almost no experience with handguns... there just wasn't much of a reason to (in their minds) until the opportunity for legal carry. Those folks often have a ton of bad habits.

 

There are also numerous people who really don't care that much about firearms, or even like firearms, but who seek the means to defend themselves if needed.