We're too stupid to have a CCW

[lord_casek]

 

Not really. This is rigged as fuck.

[50Nine]

Yea, that's rigged..

[angelofdeath]

hahaha, this is teh LOLZ

i'd love to see an ABC report on all accidental discharges, collateral damage, death tolls and inefficiency of arms of the boys of government

[lord_casek]

hahaha, this is teh LOLZ

i'd love to see an ABC report on all accidental discharges, collateral damage, death tolls and inefficiency of arms of the boys of government

 

 

It's a damn shame we let "news" shows do this to us.

[Mr. Incognito]

my computer is barely letting me watch this but is this the same special they did where they gave a bunch of college kids fake guns and staged a class shooting and noted the results were always the same? the student with the gun trying to defend the class would get shot because they are idiots. to think that giving kids guns who know nothing about them and have no interest in learning about them is a good way to experiment something like that is pretty much retarded. most people who obtain CCW permits do it because they have an interest in firearms, self protection, and learning the laws and methods of self defense.

 

leave it to a liberal news outlet to do something this one dimensional. at least that youtube video a huge number of dislikes compared to likes. could have something to do with the most people ever in our country who are FOR gun ownership compared to those that aren't.

[christo-f]

I should be the only person allowed to have a gun, ever!!

[Mr. Incognito]

It's a damn shame we let "news" shows do this to us.

 

 

you're right, because there's plenty of people who buy what ABC was trying to say. on the bright side, statistics only show constant increases in gun ownership and support for legal carry.

[Fist 666]

i don't disagree that most people who carry should have more training, but that was fucking insulting.

[Mr. Incognito]

i don't think anyone can have enough training when it comes to firearms, but when it comes to carrying handguns i assume most encounters/attacks would require almost point black range firing or at least pretty close. which a 12 year old could manage.

[Qawee]

i dont know about that, adrenaline dump is a motherfucker

[Fist 666]

shooting quickdraw from the hip is tough without practice.

i don't know of many ranges that allow from-the-hip shooting, not indoor anyways, and i generally feel uncomfortable at outdoor ranges when anyone other than cops or military are doing it.

 

shots will likely be on target, but a kill shot?

[metalasfock]

1st thing i noted was the use of simunitions.. those things fucking suck dick and do not have even a similar trajectory than a regular bullet so theres that..

 

2nd Most people getting a ccw are not retards that haven't touched guns, that air-soft faggot? seriously? air-soft gave that kid some sort of credentials in that experiment.

 

3rd that guy running into the room KNOWS someone has a gun and is supposed to defend themselves. when in real life would an assailant actually know to look for that, he may expect it MAYBE but he damn sure wont be as ready for it as that dude was.

 

4th And as many others have stated of course they need more training, there should be a semi annual recert or something.

 

5th just as Fist666 said, shooting while drawing from the hip leg or even chest is VERY difficult and to master it can take thousands upon thousands of hours of training.

[Fist 666]

to your second point.

i'm not sure about that. go sit in LESA sometime just to watch the people who apply for a CCW in washington. its kind of scary, particularly some of the middle-to-elderly aged women coming in to get it for protection.

or shit, just listen in on some conversations at a gun shop of women buying handguns.

 

i'm pretty sure plenty of them have never been to a range and have no idea what a shot group is, let alone how to get it tight.

[metalasfock]

to your second point.

i'm not sure about that. go sit in LESA sometime just to watch the people who apply for a CCW in washington. its kind of scary, particularly some of the middle-to-elderly aged women coming in to get it for protection.

or shit, just listen in on some conversations at a gun shop of women buying handguns.

 

i'm pretty sure plenty of them have never been to a range and have no idea what a shot group is, let alone how to get it tight.

 

touche... ill sit back down now

[christo-f]

touche... ill sit back down now

 

Other than that, I'd agree with pretty much everything that you've said.

 

I'm less worried about in experienced folk with weapons (as they are usually pretty apprehensive about using them and are not likely to fire unless its life and death). It's the gung ho idiots and angry people who lose their discipline that I worry about. They may legally carry but booze, pride and emotion can turn a law abiding carrier in to a dickhead real quick.

 

I remember reading some stats (yes I know) years ago in Aust. that said a large element of firearm crimes were committed by lawful owners in moments of passion in their own homes. The main offending weapon was a .22 rifle and the main victims were spouses (wives), family members or close acquaintances and alcohol was very often a prominent factor in the issue. I'm talking at least a decade ago, though. Was just an interesting piece of information, not trying to draw any conclusions either way from it, just shooting the shit, so to speak.

 

Kind of got off the track of conceal weapons, I guess. Sorry about that.

[Mr. Incognito]

to your second point.

i'm not sure about that. go sit in LESA sometime just to watch the people who apply for a CCW in washington. its kind of scary, particularly some of the middle-to-elderly aged women coming in to get it for protection.

or shit, just listen in on some conversations at a gun shop of women buying handguns.

 

i'm pretty sure plenty of them have never been to a range and have no idea what a shot group is, let alone how to get it tight.

 

 

i would argue that by saying, at least for here in NY, they would actually have to get a pistol permit to legally be able to handle ANY hand gun. in other words, if their husbands are permit holders for example, and they go to the range with them, unless they have a permit themselves they cannot legally shoot or even handle their husband's firearms.

 

most people don't really follow that bullshit law though when it comes to being introduced to shooting handguns, but let's just say for the sake of technicality that the only way uneducated people will get a chance to learn as much as possible about firearms is to actually apply for a permit as well.

 

 

 

as for the quick draw from the hip firing, at the range i go to there is a special outdoor range specifically for that, which you have to get certified for

[Fist 666]

yeah, washington is way more lax about permits like that.

 

the range i go to lets me draw from the holster, but absolutely no hip firing.

[metalasfock]

Firing from the hip ((IMO and my opinion is based on a good amount of training) is one of the dumbest and "hollywood" things you can do. I know there are plenty of marksmen in the world that can fire from the hip. To me I would much rather train on drawing from a holster, and different kinds as well in different locations. Fist we gotta get together one of these days for some range time i havent shot since i got out, and im ashamed to admit i own nothing, but will gladly pay for ammo..

[Fist 666]

PMd

[Mr. Incognito]

you know what else is stupid about that ABC experiment? they didn't mention to the viewers that they told the kids with the guns in the classroom to take out the attacker that they supposedly didn't know about. why did each of those kids try to draw their fake weapon? what's the point? it's a fake weapon. everybody else hit the deck but the one student in the class each time tried to unholster and fire at the fake attacker? FOR WHAT!? those kids said they had no idea someone was coming into the classroom like that to shoot it up, so why would they draw their fake weapons on them and not hit the floor like everyone else? this is what you get when you experiment with dumbass college kids.

 

if this were me, i woulda hit the ground quick, considered unholstering my real gun, but only to protect myself. when i carry, i plan not to be a hero. it's personal protection, with a few exceptions for whoever im with.

 

 

haha sorry my rants are probably hard to follow, this whole thing just still pisses me off, and im pretty sure this special came out a couple years ago because i saw it when it aired.

[angelofdeath]

shooting quickdraw from the hip is tough without practice.

i don't know of many ranges that allow from-the-hip shooting, not indoor anyways, and i generally feel uncomfortable at outdoor ranges when anyone other than cops or military are doing it.

 

shots will likely be on target, but a kill shot?

 

i sort of feel the opposite.

i'd probably leave if i saw cops trying to do from the hip shots.

you have much more of a chance of being shot by a cop than by anyone else.

 

i'd also like to say that it is pretty naive what some of you guys are implying. or at least what im taking away from some of these posts. that some arbitrary government requirement = trained gun owner.

CCW classes are a joke. some of the guys around here teaching them dont even know the laws and they are 'state certified' and have a monopoly on the training classes that allow one to apply to the state for permission to exercise their natural rights. all these classes do is make the statists feel slightly more comfortable about the slaves being armed. a majority of cops cant shoot and they are the state's men. i think that is all that needs to be said about this sort of thing.

[Fist 666]

i don't disagree, at all. i didn't take any sort of ccw class for mine, filled out some paperwork, answered no questions about my firearms experience, and paid 60 or so bucks.

 

the reason i feel safer with cops shooting from the hip at a range, than civilians is that cops at least practice it and have tests on it.

[angelofdeath]

thats true. they do have tests on it. for what that is worth.

i was talking to a prison guard recently. he carries an sw mp everyday at work. also carries an 870. he said the only time he is 'allowed' to fire either weapon is qualifications once a year. the results of the most recent one, including his own shooting was laughable at best. he said 3 guards could barely qualify with the 870.

 

i guess the point im alluding to is...firearms are serious business. there is potentially a lawyer at the other end of every round that comes out of one. there is no successful means to 'screen' people who carry firearms. some guys who are given extra legal privileges and badges arent any good. some citizens who have never taken a formal course can outshoot guys who have been to magpul dynamics. with freedom there is responsibility. people operating motor vehicles are more likely to kill someone than they are with a gun. so the entire issue with allowing people the option to decide which way is best to defend themselves is about allowing people the choice. its not about guaranteeing that armed assailants in a classroom are going to be able to subdue every crazy man with a gun. its about people being allowed to exercise their own rights to attempt to defend themselves. it is my understanding that outside of tier 1 groups like sfod-d and the like, the police of america lack the ability to successfully and routinely take down multiple armed assailants which is why they always stay behind the barricades when these school shootings occur.

 

one of the biggest deterrents to these things could potentially be if the crazy shooter has to deal with resistance from the inside and/or not know where or how he might meet his death. to me its no coincidence these shootings occur in victim disarmament zones. they like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Fist 666]

that sucks and is unacceptable.

i carry for work (armed security) and i'm lucky enough to be able to shoot whenever i feel like buying the rounds, as i carry to and from work.

 

i assume the prison guards keep their weapons in an armory and draw/turn-in at the beginning and end of each shift. it comes down to liability for their bosses i assume

 

the difference between cars and guns in that comparison is the insurance that accompanies driving.

[angelofdeath]

i carry every where i go (excluding legally restricted areas, *hello po-po's)

 

i suppose you are correct on the draw/turn in on the 870 at least. although the guy i mentioned previously comes into the gym everyday with an empty holster saying he has to lock his side arm in his truck because the gym (stupidly) has a no gun sign.

 

eh, i think the analogy is sound because even with govt required insurance, if you kill someone you can still be charged with murder, manslaughter, etc which, as far as i know, isnt quite covered by an insurance policy. even if such a thing as 'gun carrying insurance' existed, it wouldnt limit the liability of one who murders someone.

[Fist 666]

my point was that (in theory) if you're driving you have insurance, your insurance is given to you on the basis that you have a driver's license and have passed some sort of written, and likely actual driving test in order to have that license. it is by no means a perfect system.

 

in the case of guns there is no insurance, no verification of any knowledge or training whatsoever with your purchase. only that you're not a felon or involved in domestic violence. its ultimately given to you on your word that you have the slightest clue what you're doing.

 

driver's licenses do promote safer roads.

licenses to carry do not promote gun safety, only gun rights.

[angelofdeath]

i gotta disagree. licenses to carry infringe on gun rights, they do not PROMOTE them. rights do not require permission. privileges require permission.

 

while im 100% against a CCW permit itself, many states if not most states with shall issue permits require an 8hr class for the average citizen (excluding military, etc). in this class it is supposed to teach you the law and you have to 'qualify' by shooting. its basically like the requirements for a drivers license. you then get your certificate and can then get your permit. if you think a drivers license promotes safer roads, you must also think that this arbitrary ccw class promotes safer side arm carriers. how many people do you know or see with drivers licenses that cant drive good, get in accidents all the time, etc? more than i can think of. 40K people a year die on the highways.

 

i dont believe a drivers license promotes good driving at all. it just means you can pass the little driving test they give you. the same way passing the little written test and stupid little firing proficiency test they give you when you get a CCW permit.

 

it boils down to being responsible. it is everyones responsibility to be accountable for their own actions. its the way freedom works. if you purposefully murder someone or have a negligent discharge, its on you. someone will come and put you in front of a judge. there is absolutely no way to prove that one is a 'capable' gun owner before purchasing. not only is this impossible, it also infringes on ones right to own an inanimate object to defend themselves. and if there was some objective way to determine exactly how a gun toter will react and act in every situation, it will still be screwed up because government would administer the program.

[Fist 666]

drivers licenses absolutely promote safeR driving. without them i am very confident the number of deaths would be much, much higher.

 

i think that an 8 hour course is better than no course at all. WA doesn't require any sort of class or weapons familiarization. and i would feel better if some women i've seen buy guns had even an hour familiarization, NDs kill.

 

i don't think a CCL/CCW makes anyone a safer or better gun owner: i agree, its absolutely about personal responsibility, and i think most citizens are wholly irresponsible. but so are politicians, police, and just about everybody else. i don't know that there is a good solution.

[Decyferon]

dont most insurance policies for cars have Legal liability for death or injury to any other person

 

just read this in an insurance policy here

 

We will insure you for all amounts which you

may have to pay as a result of you being legally

liable for:

(a) Another person’s death or injury.

(b) Damage to another person’s property up to

a maximum amount of £20,000,000

(excluding that person’s costs and expenses

and any other cost and expenses) and up to

£5,000,000 for that person’s costs and

expenses and any other costs and expenses

incurred with our written consent in relation

to damage to that person’s property as a

result of an accident caused by:

[angelofdeath]

drivers licenses absolutely promote safeR driving. without them i am very confident the number of deaths would be much, much higher.

 

i think that an 8 hour course is better than no course at all. WA doesn't require any sort of class or weapons familiarization. and i would feel better if some women i've seen buy guns had even an hour familiarization, NDs kill.

 

i don't think a CCL/CCW makes anyone a safer or better gun owner: i agree, its absolutely about personal responsibility, and i think most citizens are wholly irresponsible. but so are politicians, police, and just about everybody else. i don't know that there is a good solution.

 

im with you on most of this.

id go a step further and say if roads were sold to private industry, they would have an incentive to decrease death rates to increase their profits. govts have no incentive to please customers. because people are 1. forced to fund them. 2. forced to use them. imagine if any other private company had this power? but we are not given a choice, we are given a socialist road system and have to deal with that. because government administers them, there is no way to properly allocate resources, which is why socialism fails.

 

if you think a drivers license lowers the death count, i dont know what to tell you on that one. if a 90 year old woman with no reaction time, half blind and upper body articulation can drive on the roads, with a legally held license, the license essentially means nothing. it means you can answer a few questions mostly about dui's and penalties and driving laws that dont really pertain to safety and can parallel park. thats about it. it doesnt mean you really know anything about the actual mechanics of driving on the roads.

 

i've long had a theory. the best way to handle things like speeding and reckless driving is not to levy fines, but to allow insurance agencies to levy market based fees to your premiums. they are only marginally allowed to do this at present.

 

thats just it. in a free society, you have some people who might seem 'scary.' however, there is no right to not be 'scared.' most feel that the fact that someone can own a gun in america that their rights are being infringed on because they feel scared. i'd submit you can only enact something to infringe on ones liberty if they commit actual mala in se against someone else. otherwise, they should be free to do as they wish.

 

lets also remember politicians and police are just people. if people are irresponsible, then so are these people acting under state authority, as i think you know.

 

i'd urge all gun owners to at least train every week and/or attend as many classes as possible. this is in their best interest as it limits their chance screwing up.