Being Flagged while doing Public CCW Quals?

[john_marsten_1873]

This is certainly true, but their goal is to ban guns entirely, not to understand what laws would make the most sense for people to own guns safely. The decision not to include gun advocates is intentional.

This is actually not true at all. If tomorrow the majority of their constituency all of a sudden supported gun ownership, the vast majority of politicians would change their stance almost immediately, saying they've "evolved". The same would happen for "pro-gun" politicians.

Furthermore, if all guns were banned that would mean the anti-gun people would no longer be able to hijack one of the most divisive issues in our country. The same goes for so-called pro-gun politicians if there were no restrictions on firearms.

Interestingly, from the very same source, drug deaths outpaced both gun and motor vehicle deaths by a significant margin:

The difference is that no one says "I'm going to buy drugs or a car to commit murder!" or "I'm going to buy drugs or a car to defend myself!".

The "closest" counter-argument is that guy in who committed mass murder in Canada in 2022 where 11 people between 22-78 were murdered.

So if all guns were banned would people still find a way? Then if we ban knives, would people still find a way?

Call me crazy but what if instead we reversed the growing wage gap, expanded the middle-class and revived the American Dream? Would we see less folks turning to crime, drugs and then murder and perhaps a reduction in mental illness resulting less murder and suicide?

 

[tomrkba]

Does anyone have a similar experience. Was doing a CCW renewal course and saw at least three of eight people on the firing line mishandling, flagging, and or having their fingers on the trigger before it was time to fire. The guy next to me got flagged and grabbed the dude's gun and threw it downrange instinctively. The flagger got kicked out of the class and will be rescheduled for the next session. I was genuinely concerned and next renewal plan to bring body armor and a helmet to prevent any injuries on the range. Are the requirements for CCWs now getting way to easy that inexperienced or untrained people are ending up qualifying and carrying firearms in the community. Asking if anyone had similar experiences or maybe I just got a bad batch.

You do not throw a loaded gun downrange. Instead, you control it before unloading it.

Asking if anyone had similar experiences or maybe I just got a bad batch.

Of course. Let's see:

1) A friend and I were pasting targets downrange at 25 yards in the center. Guy pulls up and starts setting up. We continued pasting when we heard POP POP POP. We ran very quickly back to the line.

2) Walked into the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA. A man was just in front of the door futzing with a gun. A SIG P226 was on the table cocked and pointed at the door. I guess he forgot the bit about handling guns behind the yellow line. The friggin' NRA RO was farting around in the booth and not paying attention.

3) Was shooting and looked over to my left. The guy in the next booth was pointing a gun right at me. At least he apologized profusely.

4) Informal range. Line established and I called "Commence firing". One guy decides to run down to the target to do something with it. I called "Cease fire". One guy who was aiming got in my face all mad because "I was aiming". I said, "Yes, you were, and someone crossed the firing line and went down range. That requires an immediate "Cease Fire" command." He couldn't understand what the problem was.

5) In Loudoun, one guy pointed a handgun at me repeatedly. I told him to mind his muzzle and not point the gun at me. He didn't care and ignored me. He did it again. I very pointedly loaded up my pistol with JHP and stated "If you point that gun at me again, I am going to point mine at you." I then got the guy kicked out via RO.

 

[NorCalBusa]

This is actually not true at all. If tomorrow the majority of their constituency all of a sudden supported gun ownership, the vast majority of politicians would change their stance almost immediately, saying they've "evolved". The same would happen for "pro-gun" politicians.

Furthermore, if all guns were banned that would mean the anti-gun people would no longer be able to hijack one of the most divisive issues in our country. The same goes for so-called pro-gun politicians if there were no restrictions on firearms.


The difference is that no one says "I'm going to buy drugs or a car to commit murder!" or "I'm going to buy drugs or a car to defend myself!".

The "closest" counter-argument is that guy in who committed mass murder in Canada in 2022 where 11 people between 22-78 were murdered.

So if all guns were banned would people still find a way? Then if we ban knives, would people still find a way?

Call me crazy but what if instead we reversed the growing wage gap, expanded the middle-class and revived the American Dream? Would we see less folks turning to crime, drugs and then murder and perhaps a reduction in mental illness resulting less murder and suicide?

I stopped reading at "If...".

 

[weaverftw]

This is actually not true at all. If tomorrow the majority of their constituency all of a sudden supported gun ownership, the vast majority of politicians would change their stance almost immediately, saying they've "evolved". The same would happen for "pro-gun" politicians.

Furthermore, if all guns were banned that would mean the anti-gun people would no longer be able to hijack one of the most divisive issues in our country. The same goes for so-called pro-gun politicians if there were no restrictions on firearms.


The difference is that no one says "I'm going to buy drugs or a car to commit murder!" or "I'm going to buy drugs or a car to defend myself!".

The "closest" counter-argument is that guy in who committed mass murder in Canada in 2022 where 11 people between 22-78 were murdered.

So if all guns were banned would people still find a way? Then if we ban knives, would people still find a way?

Call me crazy but what if instead we reversed the growing wage gap, expanded the middle-class and revived the American Dream? Would we see less folks turning to crime, drugs and then murder and perhaps a reduction in mental illness resulting less murder and suicide?

I like the use of the drug analogy more than the car analogy; they really ARE fundamentally different and there is a more direct link and intentionality in mind with guns and homemade than with cars (especially for normies whose only exposure to guns is movies).

It’s also likely to make you seem uncaring if you essentially say “well carts kill more people but we aren’t banning them” because, even if it were true, it makes it feel like you don’t empathize with the people/families who lose loved ones to gun violence, whatever the number is. It turns out into a utilitarian numbers game and that doesn’t work for people who are feeling the feels.

If you instead bring up how you think about drugs: that criminalization of possession/use only hurts good people, that those people need help/support, we need to improve education, access to mental healthcare, etc - I bet most anti-gun or neutral types agree with those ideas. Then you can make the analogy to gun laws - the laws only affect good law abiding citizens, that gun violence is largely a gang and mental health issue (a broader societal issue about lack of belonging/community) and similarly we should be focusing efforts there rather than instituting laws that criminals just ignore and that only impact law abiding gun owners unnecessarily. THEN you can talk about the frequency of defensive firearm use (it happens more than most people think), the fact that the vast majority of cases involve no trigger being pulled, our right to self defense, guns as a power equalizer for vulnerable populations (women, low income families, etc), and all that jazz.

If you start with an analogy that makes you seem callous and that most people don’t see as an apt comparison, they’re gonna turn their ears off. Getting agreement on an underlying principle first goes a long way in getting people to listen.

 

[timmytoast]

Yes, had it happen to me the first time I qualified (something which, by the way, no other state in which I have a permit mandates) it was at a public outdoor shooting range. A woman shooting next to me for some inexplicable reason was wearing a tank top. You know where this is going. Hot brass hit skin, she freaked out and flailed around, and I was suddenly staring down the barrel of her loaded M&P Shield with her finger on the trigger. Thankfully she didn’t pull the trigger. I stepped back and waited for her to be finished before resuming my shooting.

When I lived in AZ and got my CCW permit I was required to qualify by putting X amount of shots within the 7 ring on a silhouette target. The caveat was that you did not have to qualify with whatever handgun you planned on carrying.

 

[HarleyLowRiderST]

29 States have Constitutional Carry Laws

• Is there any qualification to be proficient?
• Should any of our Constitutional Rights have a requirement to be proficient?

 

[ttg7ya]

This is exactly why I only go to the 29 Palms private gun club and use the public ranges only to qualify. Never had a single issue at my club but every range is filled with this crap.

 

[Gawernator]

Eh, per the CDC, firearm deaths outpaced motor-vehicle deaths in 2024 by about 3,200: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

And if you're feeling inclined to hand-wave that away my making spurious claims about the CDC cooking the numbers due to some shady agenda, please don't bother.

Which includes lawful killings by police and self defense, along with suicides right?

Take those out and show me the numbers

 

[Gawernator]

Yes, that’s the purpose. I understand their reasoning, even though I disagree with it.

That said, gun ownership is increasing…



This is certainly true, but their goal is to ban guns entirely, not to understand what laws would make the most sense for people to own guns safely. The decision not to include gun advocates is intentional.



Interestingly, from the very same source, drug deaths outpaced both gun and motor vehicle deaths by a significant margin:

MVC deaths: 41,241

Gun deaths: 44,447 (about 58% are suicide). So about 15,364 homicides, 450 unintentional deaths and about 636 law enforcement involved fatalities.

Flu deaths: 45,000 [other sources]

Drug overdose deaths: 79,384

Thanks for breaking that down and cutting through to the facts.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Something like 15k gun deaths (rounded up and excluding suicides) in 2025 and i think roughly 15m firearms sold (also using round number) Seems almost like a non issue for a majority of gun owners. Too bad thats not what things are catered to

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I like the use of the drug analogy more than the car analogy; they really ARE fundamentally different and there is a more direct link and intentionality in mind with guns and homemade than with cars (especially for normies whose only exposure to guns is movies).

It’s also likely to make you seem uncaring if you essentially say “well carts kill more people but we aren’t banning them” because, even if it were true, it makes it feel like you don’t empathize with the people/families who lose loved ones to gun violence, whatever the number is. It turns out into a utilitarian numbers game and that doesn’t work for people who are feeling the feels.

If you instead bring up how you think about drugs: that criminalization of possession/use only hurts good people, that those people need help/support, we need to improve education, access to mental healthcare, etc - I bet most anti-gun or neutral types agree with those ideas. Then you can make the analogy to gun laws - the laws only affect good law abiding citizens, that gun violence is largely a gang and mental health issue (a broader societal issue about lack of belonging/community) and similarly we should be focusing efforts there rather than instituting laws that criminals just ignore and that only impact law abiding gun owners unnecessarily. THEN you can talk about the frequency of defensive firearm use (it happens more than most people think), the fact that the vast majority of cases involve no trigger being pulled, our right to self defense, guns as a power equalizer for vulnerable populations (women, low income families, etc), and all that jazz.

If you start with an analogy that makes you seem callous and that most people don’t see as an apt comparison, they’re gonna turn their ears off. Getting agreement on an underlying principle first goes a long way in getting people to listen.

The car comparison is just terrible! I won’t go into but the drug comparison is easily dismantled as well.

The problem with comparisons at all is that people will always look for something else to compare to, no matter how good of an argument you make. So it’s not even understanding the argument you’re trying to make and instead oneupmanship or argument just for the sake of it.

Instead, there’s very clear data on how to reduce crime and the biggest factor, overwhelmingly is expansion of economic opportunity. More than any other factor (beyond mass shootings) concentrated poverty is overwhelmingly, the biggest driver of violent crime.

So the question to ask anti-gun folks is whether they really care about guns or violent crime. To which I’d also say get rid of crime then come talk to me about carrying a firearm to defend myself! (They’d could care less about it at that point)

 

[NorCalBusa]

When I lived in AZ and got my CCW permit I was required to qualify by putting X amount of shots within the 7 ring on a silhouette target. The caveat was that you did not have to qualify with whatever handgun you planned on carrying.

You don't have to have a permit for CCW in AZ., it does have some bennies though.

 

[timmytoast]

You don't have to have a permit for CCW in AZ., it does have some bennies though.

Correct. I got my permit after constitutional carry was passed. I got it because of the benefits you mention.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

29 States have Constitutional Carry Laws

• Is there any qualification to be proficient?
• Should any of our Constitutional Rights have a requirement to be proficient?

Whether they should or shouldn’t, they’re written in a way that leaves them up to interpretation.

So one could counter that 2A doesn’t explicitly restrict a proficiency requirement. This is the current state of affairs where we wait on SCOTUS to tell us their interpretation.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Whether they should or shouldn’t, they’re written in a way that leaves them up to interpretation.

So one could counter that 2A doesn’t explicitly restrict a proficiency requirement. This is the current state of affairs where we wait on SCOTUS to tell us their interpretation.

Is putting a right behind any form of "payment" not akin to a poll tax which are illegal Also the amendments restrict what the government can do not what we can do. Not saying i disagree with your statements or anything.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Whether they should or shouldn’t, they’re written in a way that leaves them up to interpretation.

So one could counter that 2A doesn’t explicitly restrict a proficiency requirement. This is the current state of affairs where we wait on SCOTUS to tell us their interpretation.

If there's anything clear about the recent 2a cases it's whether or not the ccw licensing in Ca is "constitutional" (unfortunately Kavanaugh says it 100% is, as long as the criteria is not based on need): page 79 is where Kavanaugh's opinion starts in Bruen https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

New York’s law is inconsistent with the Second Amendment
right to possess and carry handguns for self-defense.
By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licens-
ing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a li-
cense applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al.
as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime,
those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discre-
tion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of
some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners
acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitu-
tionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied chal-
lenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in
that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51.
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ ob-
jective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand-
guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec-
tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-
issue States.

 

[HiveMed]

Does anyone have a similar experience. Was doing a CCW renewal course and saw at least three of eight people on the firing line mishandling, flagging, and or having their fingers on the trigger before it was time to fire. The guy next to me got flagged and grabbed the dude's gun and threw it downrange instinctively. The flagger got kicked out of the class and will be rescheduled for the next session. I was genuinely concerned and next renewal plan to bring body armor and a helmet to prevent any injuries on the range. Are the requirements for CCWs now getting way to easy that inexperienced or untrained people are ending up qualifying and carrying firearms in the community. Asking if anyone had similar experiences or maybe I just got a bad batch.

Dude where did you go? This is 100% on the instructor not being aware and going over safety protocols properly if that many people were flagging others in the class.

 

[Joker67]

29 States have Constitutional Carry Laws

• Is there any qualification to be proficient?
• Should any of our Constitutional Rights have a requirement to be proficient?

“A well regulated militia”. In the legal language of the Constitution, regulated means trained. Well trained.

The Founding Fathers lived in a time where it was a given that rights come with responsibilities. Now people are more concerned with rights vs responsibilities to use those rights skillfully .

Just as some people aren’t fit to be parents but have children anyway, some people aren’t fit to own or carry guns , but do anyway. That’s their right.

 

[sonofeugene]

Unfortunately many people nowadays do not take responsibility for their actions.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Unfortunately many people nowadays do not take responsibility for their actions.

Why would anyone want to be responsible, the first thing people ask when something goes wrong? "Whos responsible for this"