scorpion_tyr
New member
I've seen a lot of debate over the issue. Where do you stand?
Last edited:
How should citizens be allowed to carry a handgun?
- Thread starter scorpion_tyr
- Start date
I am all for having the citizenry carry--HOWEVER, when a CCW classmate talks about emptying her mag in to some hypothetical intruder--without thought for possible collateral damage
AND completely missing every shot on a man sized target at 15 feet.
I worry.
Hence I support some slight form of limitation
.
AND completely missing every shot on a man sized target at 15 feet.
I worry.
Hence I support some slight form of limitation
.El Paso Joe
New member
There are a bunch of folks out there whom I DO NOT want to see able to carry. I worked as a counselor and for a time it was in the substance abuse field. Lots of my clients were multiple felons. I would have serious reservations about a bunch of them able to carry. The license would be a way to make it riskier and more difficult to carry - at least to some degree. I know some of them would carry but I want a line in the sand somewhere. In my (not so) humble opinion...
JustDreadful
New member
Sounds like a lot of po-lice...
So if someone doesn't meet your standards of marksmanship, they're not to be allowed to defend themselves? They deserve to die? How about if I say that no one who won't pay and carve out time for formal training, and I don't mean the CCW class, but real training at a real training facility, no one who won't or can't manage that should be able to carry?
I am continually amazed by gun owners who ignore the "bear" bit in RKBA
I believe in everyone's right to bear arms, with a little check and balance that is... Having your respective county check those wishing to carry is a good idea. Think of all the morons, and those with 'records'. There has to be some sort of screening. I spose the criminals are carrying as it is...
Not a perfect world, but the process does dissuade some undesirables from carrying IMO.
Just Dreadful, please don't pull my words out of context. I never said she deserved to die, I implied that she did not deserve to carry. In her self defense situation, her assaulter could probably severely injure her, and all that she would have done is sent 6 bullets to god knows where. In addition, her penchant for reckless trigger pulling creates a reasonable probability of harm to an innocent bystander. You wouldn't want to be struck by a stray bullet, would you?
Similarly, wouldn't you expect an individual behind the wheel to at least be competent?
My position is this, if you take the responsibility of packing lethal force, then you should take the responsbility of knowing both HOW to use it and WHEN it is proper to use it.
Similarly, wouldn't you expect an individual behind the wheel to at least be competent?
My position is this, if you take the responsibility of packing lethal force, then you should take the responsbility of knowing both HOW to use it and WHEN it is proper to use it.
Last edited:
I voted "Other"
I am, as always, a fan and proponent of decentralized government.
In other words, I believe that ideally, this is something that should be handled by the individual county, or at highest, the state, as it is in most cases already.
So, if a county for instance, allows its citizens to carry in any way with out a license, I'm all for it.
Or, more realisticly, if a state wants to regulate all forms of carry into extinction, they can watch the crime rates climb, and I'd be moving somewhere else.
Eli W.
I am, as always, a fan and proponent of decentralized government.
In other words, I believe that ideally, this is something that should be handled by the individual county, or at highest, the state, as it is in most cases already.
So, if a county for instance, allows its citizens to carry in any way with out a license, I'm all for it.
Or, more realisticly, if a state wants to regulate all forms of carry into extinction, they can watch the crime rates climb, and I'd be moving somewhere else.
Eli W.
I voted wrong. I initially put other and I was going to say, open without a license, concealed with a license. But, after I entered I revised my thinking. Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, if not THE lowest. And no license to carry concealed or open. So I need to revise my vote. I think it should be exactly like Vermont, no permit to conceal or to open carry.
Me feeling is: a criminal who is going to shoot a cop or someone else is going to shoot that cop or someone else regardless of if their gun is legal or not.
Me feeling is: a criminal who is going to shoot a cop or someone else is going to shoot that cop or someone else regardless of if their gun is legal or not.
I voted "Concealed and Open carry with a license" but I think the "license" should just be card saying you have passed some kind of firearms safety class (not yet sure how/who should regulate the class though). I know a bunch of people that would pass the legal requirements to buy a handgun that I wouldn't want anywhere near me with one.
Last edited:
TheManHimself
New member
There should be no licensing period. Our right is "...to keep and bear(carry) arms..."
Criminals carry concealed weapons whenever they want to, permit or no permit. So the permitting system is pointless and only serves to hassle law-abiding citizens.
Criminals carry concealed weapons whenever they want to, permit or no permit. So the permitting system is pointless and only serves to hassle law-abiding citizens.
The felons, dopeheads, wife beaters, deadbeat parents, and the like- sadly, I gotta vote for some sort of licensing that offers a degree of selectivity and training. I'm sure there must be a fair number of folks who get the license simply BECAUSE it comes with training and an explanation of the associated legalese. And what about the folks who didn't have a dad or anybody at home to teach them any sort of safety and responsibility as they were growin up? Wouldn't be right to tell them to suck it up and sink or swim.
Kreyzhorse
New member
I don't believe there should be any type of license involved. In my opinion, a license requirment only prohibts law abiding people from being armed.
We should also expect that any opinion uttered by another person should be well thought out and worth saying. However, we don't license the right to speak simply because most of what we hear is meaningless drivel. More people have died from irresponsible speech and opinions than from drunk driving and negligent use of firearms combined, yet we still allow people to speak when and how they desire without regulation.
Mark Milton
Moderator
The very people you DON"T WANT TO CARRY WEAPONS will carry them anyway.
Thats life.
Decent law abiding citizens shouldn't be disarmed to appease morons and politicians and McSheeple.
I have yet to see a cop who can outshoot the run of the mill gun enthusiast.
Even in competition circles it's civillians who usually take home the trophies. Other than Massad Ayoob and a hadfull of people who aren't household names how many men in blue even compete at that level?
This idea that putting a government uniform on a guy somehow makes him more competent to handle a weapon than somebody who has a burning interest in them is stupid, to be polite.
Thats life.
Decent law abiding citizens shouldn't be disarmed to appease morons and politicians and McSheeple.
I have yet to see a cop who can outshoot the run of the mill gun enthusiast.
Even in competition circles it's civillians who usually take home the trophies. Other than Massad Ayoob and a hadfull of people who aren't household names how many men in blue even compete at that level?
This idea that putting a government uniform on a guy somehow makes him more competent to handle a weapon than somebody who has a burning interest in them is stupid, to be polite.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
For the same reasons that we have been fighting about for 200 years. We have the unalienable right to use and carry firearms with no government infringement what so ever.
I voted Concealed and Open Carry without a license.
I voted Concealed and Open Carry without a license.
I dont see the license as a way to tax us for carrying, as much as I see it as a way to make sure we dont have people walking the streets that dont know the laws of carrying, and dont know how to safely handle a gun. The course I took in florida wasnt great, but it helped me understand where I could and couldn't carry a gun as well as when I can and cant use deadly force. There are enough idiots in our country that would be quick to pull out a gun and fire at someone for either just saying "im gonna kill you" or trying to fist fight them. People need to be educated about concealed or open carry, and having to obtain a license is a way for both government and us as citizens to make sure people know how to safely and properly carry.
The license should be dirt cheap, like $20, and just require that people who wish to carry pass a safety course and possibly even have to qualify with a weapon. Kchen said it and I agree. People who cant shoot for **** are just as likely to injure somone else as they are to defend themselves. When I first got my Florida CCW, at 5 to 7 yards, I'd be able to hit a man sized target, at 15, 25 yards, I'd be more likely to miss than hit the target. Now I am a much better shot, and live in nj, but there would be plenty of people carrying that couldnt hit the broad side of a barn if no qualifying was required. And for those of you against it, are you that bad of a shot that it would be that much of a pain in the ass to qualify, lets say, once every 2-5 years?
The license should be dirt cheap, like $20, and just require that people who wish to carry pass a safety course and possibly even have to qualify with a weapon. Kchen said it and I agree. People who cant shoot for **** are just as likely to injure somone else as they are to defend themselves. When I first got my Florida CCW, at 5 to 7 yards, I'd be able to hit a man sized target, at 15, 25 yards, I'd be more likely to miss than hit the target. Now I am a much better shot, and live in nj
, but there would be plenty of people carrying that couldnt hit the broad side of a barn if no qualifying was required. And for those of you against it, are you that bad of a shot that it would be that much of a pain in the ass to qualify, lets say, once every 2-5 years?
Last edited: