1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
181 - 200 of 235 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,303 Posts
AZdesert1911 ----------- I agree with you that the distance of a fight, for non-military or LE people, is likely to be only a few feet.

And CA's bar is set pretty dang low for accuracy & distance. I could do it blindfolded, throwing bagels. I've never seen anyone fail. Easy peasy.

What MATTERS is having the sense to keep your damn "booger hook off the bang switch" and to not point your gun at innocents. If you can't achieve even THAT level of consideration feel free to carry 1.5 miles from anyone else.

Or get your crap together like a normal human & carry everywhere. Either way is good.
My preference for prohibiting a person who is repeatedly, visibly unsafe is to charge them appropriately in the vein of reckless endangerment. Given remorse, on a 1st offense, offer commuting the sentence to a 3hr firearm safety class and 3hrs community service.

Got a few of my students that way ... most of them have been a little extra challenging. You know ... thought they knew everything and that the person they'd swept was a wimp for making such a fuss.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
120 Posts
When you become a Constitutional amendment, let us know. Until then, I’ll follow the one that guards my right to armed self-defense, without exceptions or qualifiers. The anti-gunners are already on the job; don’t HELP them, by advocating for their ‘reasonable’ requests.
When you learn to comprehend english let me know. I PLAINLY said i wasnt commenting on the rights issue of it. I never said anything about advocating for any requests reasonable or otherwise.
Here I will just copy & paste. Maybe you quoted the wrong guy by mistake.

"Not gonna get into the rights part of it because its pointless but fact of the matter is if you cant put 21 out of 30 in a full size silhouette at 7 yards you shouldnt be packing a gun weather you have a right to or not.
Show me Im wrong!"

And I stand 100% behind the statement that anyone that cant put 21 out of 30 in a 3 foot tall target at 7 yards and not under duress should NOT be carrying a gun.
If thats acceptable shooting in a SD scenario you ever ask yourself where the 9 misses went? 9 potential innocent victims right to live dont count? What if they are your family members? Sometimes one mans rights end where another mans begins.
Plenty of comments here on the rights aspect from lots of guys but you choose the one guy that SPECFICLLY said he wasnt commenting on the rights part of it.
Was I your 1st or second post? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
I wonder if any lawful citizen has ever emptied a full magazine in a public place, repeatedly missing a BG in close proximity, spraying bullets all about, hitting innocent persons further behind in the line of the sprayed fire?

Is this a real scenario or is it simply more "scare tactic" hypotheticals from the leftists' playbook?

Not talking about gang members, we all know they spray bullets around without the slightest care. I'm thinking about citizens who have lived a lawful life.

If it's real scenario, something that's happened (more than once in one hundred years) I'm a reasonable person and can understand. A lot of talk has been advanced about this, so it seems reasonable to ask whether there's any reality to this.

If it's purely a hypothetical argument, or something that's happened once in one hundred years, I'm not quite persuaded.

A sincere question, not rhetorical. Whatever the answer, the direction of the answer is something that would go into my calculations of what makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
When you learn to comprehend english let me know. I PLAINLY said i wasnt commenting on the rights issue of it. I never said anything about advocating for any requests reasonable or otherwise.
Here I will just copy & paste. Maybe you quoted the wrong guy by mistake.

"Not gonna get into the rights part of it because its pointless but fact of the matter is if you cant put 21 out of 30 in a full size silhouette at 7 yards you shouldnt be packing a gun weather you have a right to or not.
Show me Im wrong!"

And I stand 100% behind the statement that anyone that cant put 21 out of 30 in a 3 foot tall target at 7 yards and not under duress should NOT be carrying a gun.
If thats acceptable shooting in a SD scenario you ever ask yourself where the 9 misses went? 9 potential innocent victims right to live dont count? What if they are your family members? Sometimes one mans rights end where another mans begins.
Plenty of comments here on the rights aspect from lots of guys but you choose the one guy that SPECFICLLY said he wasnt commenting on the rights part of it.
Was I your 1st or second post? :rolleyes:
I read your original post, which you reposted here, and I agree 100%. It's no different than having someone drive a car that doesn't know how. They're a menace. In the case of the lousy shot, they reflect poorly on us all when they miss the intended target and hit an innocent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
I wonder if any lawful citizen has ever emptied a full magazine in a public place, repeatedly missing a BG in close proximity, spraying bullets all about, hitting innocent persons further behind in the line of the sprayed fire?

Is this a real scenario or is it simply more "scare tactic" hypotheticals from the leftists' playbook?

Not talking about gang members, we all know they spray bullets around without the slightest care. I'm thinking about citizens who have lived a lawful life.

If it's real scenario, something that's happened (more than once in one hundred years) I'm a reasonable person and can understand.

If it's purely a hypothetical, I'm not quite persuaded.

A sincere question, not rhetorical. Whatever the answer, the direction of the answer is something that would go into my calculations of what makes sense.
This is a strawman argument that doesn't address the issue at hand. We all know that generally speaking, cops are lousy shots. Compound that with the stress of the situation, and you get the Laquan McDonald incident in Chicago. I don't want cops with no shooting skills on the streets any more than I want a concealed carrier that cant hit the broadside of a barn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
Certainly we'd all prefer lawful citizens who carry firearms to have a little proficiency.

That's not the question. It's truly a straw man

Instead, the question is do we trust government to decide who is "fit" to carry and who is not. If the answer is "no", then I think someone is already onboard, or very close to being onboard, with Constitutional carry. If the answer is "yes", someone then believes in mandatory licensing under government control. Which would necessarily be at the state level today, with every state going off on its own....unless someone prefers to trust federal government under Joe Biden.

I don't see how those of you who prefer mandatory qualification can have what you desire without also giving over to government the right to determine the standards.

We have already seen what some state governments have determined to be reasonable. Again, the example of New York is real. They're fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to retain their state government's "right" to decide what is reasonable. There are other states as well who have used licensing authority to trample over 2A rights.

And this is not a straw man argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
My preference for prohibiting a person who is repeatedly, visibly unsafe is to charge them appropriately in the vein of reckless endangerment. Given remorse, on a 1st offense, offer commuting the sentence to a 3hr firearm safety class and 3hrs community service.

Got a few of my students that way ... most of them have been a little extra challenging. You know ... thought they knew everything and that the person they'd swept was a wimp for making such a fuss.
Ditto, tgt,... can't agree more! Personally, one of my shooting buds just lost it one day. He swept me twice after my warning. He was immediately relieved, and we have not shot together since, it has been over 10 years now!

Never will I put up with such,... safety is not a game to me,...at least, it is not on my pistol and rifle range,... AND NEVER WILL BE!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
tgt_usa As long as the end result is competency / safety I see no problem with that.
This end result is a common thread around which there's considerable agreement. Not 100% agreement, but considerable agreement.

My concern is whether to trust government with the Right to Bear Arms. And I do not trust them. The examples of New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, etc. have pretty much convinced me that I cannot trust government with 2A rights.

----

Just a peripheral thought:

In considering proficiency, I think we also need to consider context in cases as the previously discussed example of "Becky"....whose purpose was solely to defend against a very specific criminal who directly threatened to kill her...and the police won't defend her until after she's already been attacked (and probably deceased). "Becky" isn't likely to be firing recklessly in public places, she's concerned more about bring stalked, and murdered, at her own driveway.

Even if "Becky" is not all that proficient, and has never before handled a firearm, I'm not so sure that she should be wholly deprived of even a chance to defend against the inevitable.

Again, this is just peripheral to the question of trusting government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,713 Posts
We all know that generally speaking, cops are lousy shots.

I don't want cops with no shooting skills on the streets any more than I want a concealed carrier that cant hit the broadside of a barn.
To get a higher level of LE pistol skill, perhaps LE pistol training should be upgraded to a more rigorous training and qualification level. We could have the Federal Government design a program for all LE agencies, state and local, to implement.

In addition, we could require those wishing to obtain a concealed carry permit to pass this new and enhanced LE shooting skills training and test before they are given permission to carry a firearm.

Perhaps it would just be an easier system to manage if LE would only hire members who hold a USPSA Grand Master classification and likewise only grant concealed carry permits to USPSA Grand Masters?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
AZdesert1911 ----------- I agree with you that the distance of a fight, for non-military or LE people, is likely to be only a few feet.
And CA's bar is set pretty dang low for accuracy & distance. I could do it blindfolded, throwing bagels. I've never seen anyone fail. Easy peasy. It's only an "accuracy" test except in the very loosest sense of the word. ---------------Do you call yourself an "accurate" shooter because you can hit a man at 21 feet?
magman,... you just can't seem to separate the difference between a voluntary/paid for, PRIVATELY OFFERED accuracy test, and a state run infringement DESIGNED to further all kinds of possible infringements!

If one should learn anything about the Cali democrat/socialists regime, it is, ... you give them an inch and they take a mile, when it comes to gun Rights!!!

Haven't you seen this!!!

Or, am I debating with a totally controlled resident of the most 2ndA infringing state in the Union?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
This is a strawman argument that doesn't address the issue at hand. We all know that generally speaking, cops are lousy shots. Compound that with the stress of the situation, and you get the Laquan McDonald incident in Chicago. I don't want cops with no shooting skills on the streets any more than I want a concealed carrier that cant hit the broadside of a barn.
Yah,... and I want a full head of hair and a couple million in my savings account!!! 😎

It's probably a good thing your WANTS are not enforceable, borderboss,... I'm afraid you would be greatly disappointed!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
To get a higher level of LE pistol skill, perhaps LE pistol training should be upgraded to a more rigorous training and qualification level. We could have the Federal Government design a program for all LE agencies, state and local, to implement.

In addition, we could require those wishing to obtain a concealed carry permit to pass this new and enhanced LE shooting skills training and test before they are given permission to carry a firearm.

Perhaps it would just be an easier system to manage if LE would only hire members who hold a USPSA Grand Master classification and likewise only grant concealed carry permits to USPSA Grand Masters?
+1911

And the next step to assure safety is simply to ban the carrying of guns entirely. Then we won't have to worry about extreme stress factors.

Of course, criminals will also comply and safety will have been achieved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I wonder if any lawful citizen has ever emptied a full magazine in a public place, repeatedly missing a BG in close proximity, spraying bullets all about, hitting innocent persons further behind in the line of the sprayed fire?

Is this a real scenario or is it simply more "scare tactic" hypotheticals from the leftists' playbook?
If one had, it would be indelibly imprinted in the public's memory, by the marxist media,... I guarantee it!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
When you learn to comprehend english let me know. I PLAINLY said i wasnt commenting on the rights issue of it. I never said anything about advocating for any requests reasonable or otherwise.
Here I will just copy & paste. Maybe you quoted the wrong guy by mistake.

"Not gonna get into the rights part of it because its pointless but fact of the matter is if you cant put 21 out of 30 in a full size silhouette at 7 yards you shouldnt be packing a gun weather you have a right to or not.
Show me Im wrong!"

And I stand 100% behind the statement that anyone that cant put 21 out of 30 in a 3 foot tall target at 7 yards and not under duress should NOT be carrying a gun.
If thats acceptable shooting in a SD scenario you ever ask yourself where the 9 misses went? 9 potential innocent victims right to live dont count? What if they are your family members? Sometimes one mans rights end where another mans begins.
Plenty of comments here on the rights aspect from lots of guys but you choose the one guy that SPECFICLLY said he wasnt commenting on the rights part of it.
Was I your 1st or second post? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry Heavy,... but you say you're not going to get into the RIGHTS aspect of this thread out of one side of your mouth,..., but, I believe you have done just the opposite from the other side of your mouth!

I believe the crux of the matter is NOT whether safety/efficiency goals should be met,... but, rather the amount of government intervention and its endless political agendas creeping into the mix!

You may think the two are separate,... but, I don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
^^^Correct. They are not separate. And this is the crux of the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I read your original post, which you reposted here, and I agree 100%. It's no different than having someone drive a car that doesn't know how. They're a menace. In the case of the lousy shot, they reflect poorly on us all when they miss the intended target and hit an innocent.
Borderboss,... there is a difference,... driving is a society regulated privilege, and, self defense of one's life, is a Human Right!

That's a HUGE difference!!!

If every person, recklessly being a menace on the roads, is removed from such,... I think traffic would be a whole lot lighter across the Nation!

It isn't done,... because common sense tells us, life is not without risk!

A "privilege" is much easier to regulate,... yet,... when speed limits aren't decreased-(they have actually increased over the decades),... and, since age requirements are not increased (presumably to have more mature drivers on the roads :rolleyes: ),... and, vehicles are produced that go faster (faster than the driving abilities of some individuals),... and since this privilege of driving on public roads results in more deaths and maimed people a year, than any recorded gun violence,... I still have not yet witnessed the level of concern over all of that,.... as compared to the Right of Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms!

Why?

Because when all the propaganda fat is boiled down,... it is not about SAFETY,.... it is not about THE CHILDREN,... it is about POWER and CONTROL!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I read your original post, which you reposted here, and I agree 100%. It's no different than having someone drive a car that doesn't know how. They're a menace. In the case of the lousy shot, they reflect poorly on us all when they miss the intended target and hit an innocent.
I read this alot, you're not alone by any means!

But, I must be a wierd duck,... I never feel the actions of an idiot shooter reflects upon me, anymore than a bad driver does!

Guilt be association is a political con game / ploy,... in my opinion,... and I don't play that game!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
Regarding various comments in this thread:

Probably each of us sympathizes with range officers who periodically observe really negligent handling of firearms. Many of us have experienced such negligent individuals on a range...and it's most disconcerting, to say the least.

But I don't see how range officers can realistically be the ones to decide whether a person has the Right to Bear Arms. Sure, a range officer's signature can be used on a form. But the form itself and the standards it includes will be those of the government, not the range officer.

I have all the respect in the world for the range officers I know. But I don't think it is practical or even advisable to extend their authority outside of the range. If range officers are made into mere agents of government, then it's still government that's deciding matters.

I suppose range officers could (and already can if they so choose) report outrageous negligence to LEO. I'm onboard with that. But then it becomes a matter for LEO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911
181 - 200 of 235 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top