How would you design a CCW qual?

[ReaperCustom45]

Most LEO are horrible shooters. Almost none of them practice at all except when they have to pass a test.
I have one LEO friend who may actually shoot better than me though, he practices all the time.

Still, the point stands. Cops have professional training, most civilians do not, point being that simply practicing is no guarantee that someone will be 100% accurate in a defensive situation. Forcing them to spend 1 hour a month shooting at a paper target will have literally zero effect in a real situation where they have to pull their gun under stress. It's just one more inconvenience, one more hoop to jump through for people to exercise their right to protect themselves. This is the exact same kinda crap as the FSC card. Do you really think someone being able to answer all those useless idiotic questions will prevent complete morons from buying a gun? I can tell you for a fact, it does not.

 

[1911-CV]

Cops are also much more likely to need to use their firearm, yet many never have to in the entire course of their career. Does granny need to be John Wick to save her life from an armed bad guy?

 

[grandpapeepap]

Granny should play less canasta and more time training

 

[mossy]

Constitutional carry. If you can buy it, you can carry it.

 

[ReaperCustom45]

Cops are also much more likely to need to use their firearm, yet many never have to in the entire course of their career. Does granny need to be John Wick to save her life from an armed bad guy?

And there lies the other point, 29 states have constitutional carry. You don't see blood flowing in the streets because people are just whipping their guns out and blasting every bystander in sight. That's a very rare occurrence.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

And there lies the other point, 29 states have constitutional carry. You don't see blood flowing in the streets because people are just whipping their guns out and blasting every bystander in sight. That's a very rare occurrence.

the states that have instituted constitutional carry have indeed seen increasing gun violence rates. For instance in the early 2010s California and Texas were about equal with 3 firearm homicides per 100k people, and while every state experienced a bump during covid, Californias numbers are back near 3 while Texas is closer to 6. Remember that constutional carry is pretty new and only started ~2015. Many of those states weren't even "shall issue" until relatively recently either. You see the same trend in just about every state that "liberalized" gun laws over the past dcade. I think it's a good question to ask how much it actually matter though, because even with texas doubling in firearm homicides it's like 2000 to 4000 a year out of a population of 30 million. But if you are in a blue state where most of the population doesn't shoot guns and just wants to be safe, how exactly do you sell policiy change to those people? I don't think it will ever happen if there aren't conditions attached which at least performatively allude to safety.

 

[ReaperCustom45]

the states that have instituted constitutional carry have indeed seen increasing gun violence rates. For instance in the early 2010s California and Texas were about equal with 3 firearm homicides per 100k people, and while every state experienced a bump during covid, Californias numbers are back near 3 while Texas is closer to 6. Remember that constutional carry is pretty new and only started ~2015. Many of those states weren't even "shall issue" until relatively recently either. You see the same trend in just about every state that "liberalized" gun laws over the past dcade. I think it's a good question to ask how much it actually matter though, because even with texas doubling in firearm homicides it's like 2000 to 4000 a year out of a population of 30 million. But if you are in a blue state where most of the population doesn't shoot guns and just wants to be safe, how exactly do you sell policiy change to those people? I don't think it will ever happen if there aren't conditions attached which at least performatively allude to safety.

Constitutional carry really isn't new, carry permits are. We didn't have carry permits the until the 1920s. Violent crimes in general have been going up for quite some time, allowing people a way to defend themselves without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or having to spend a bunch of money just makes sense.

 

[1911-CV]

the states that have instituted constitutional carry have indeed seen increasing gun violence rates. For instance in the early 2010s California and Texas were about equal with 3 firearm homicides per 100k people, and while every state experienced a bump during covid, Californias numbers are back near 3 while Texas is closer to 6. Remember that constutional carry is pretty new and only started ~2015. Many of those states weren't even "shall issue" until relatively recently either. You see the same trend in just about every state that "liberalized" gun laws over the past dcade. I think it's a good question to ask how much it actually matter though, because even with texas doubling in firearm homicides it's like 2000 to 4000 a year out of a population of 30 million. But if you are in a blue state where most of the population doesn't shoot guns and just wants to be safe, how exactly do you sell policiy change to those people? I don't think it will ever happen if there aren't conditions attached which at least performatively allude to safety.

I guess the source of your stats matters (no surprise). According to OpenCrime (FBI data) the 2024 rate for homicides per 100,000 people in CA was 4.5 and TX 5.2 while CA actually had more homicides (1,782) versus TX (1,616).

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Constitutional carry really isn't new, carry permits are. We didn't have carry permits the until the 1920s. Violent crimes in general have been going up for quite some time, allowing people a way to defend themselves without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or having to spend a bunch of money just makes sense.

Man I'm sorry but all of this is objectively false, the entire basis of Heller and Bruen was that there has to be a historical analogue for a firearm law to be constitutional. See my quote above where they state that concealed carry was one of those historical restrictions. Besides that, in 2000 zero states had constitutional carry, the first was Alaska in 2003 with twenty something states following over the next 20 years. Besides that, the overall trend of violent crime over the past 40 years has been that it peaked in the early 1990s and has declined to an all time low today. The major exception to that trend though is that we have seen increased gun violence rates in many states that have insututed constitutional carry. Texas is the easiest to compare to California because it has a similar mix of urban and exurban populations are are both over 30 million people. But the issue is complex as correlation isn't causation, so we will see what it looks like in the next ten years in California with record numbers of gun owners and especially ccw-ers. Either way the data does not lead to the conclusion that guns make us safer in any way because so far none of the constituinal carry states show any statistical reduction in firearm homicides and violence and as stated above, in most cases show an opposite trend towards increasing gun homicide rates.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I guess the source of your stats matters (no surprise). According to OpenCrime (FBI data) the 2024 rate for homicides per 100,000 people in CA was 4.5 and TX 5.2 while CA actually had more homicides (1,782) versus TX (1,616).

You are talking murder rate while I'm was quoting firearm specific homicides, excluding suicides. Either way California has a lower rate and almost 30% higher (8 million) population.

But your data shows the same trend, California is still trending lower while Texas higher since 2010. It a little tricky with the covid blip but it still shows a clear trend. Texas was trending higher before covid.again I still question how much it matters, I'm not bringing this up to advocate for more restrictions but it's also hard for me to.say that we are any safer with guns either.




https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center...tions/data/state-gun-violence-data/california

 

[ReaperCustom45]

Man I'm sorry but all of this is objectively false, the entire basis of Heller and Bruen was that there has to be a historical analogue for a firearm law to be constitutional. See my quote above where they state that concealed carry was one of those historical restrictions. Besides that, in 2000 zero states had constitutional carry, the first was Alaska in 2003 with twenty something states following over the next 20 years. Besides that, the overall trend of violent crime over the past 40 years has been that it peaked in the early 1990s and has declined to an all time low today. The major exception to that trend though is that we have seen increased gun violence rates in many states that have insututed constitutional carry. Texas is the easiest to compare to California because it has a similar mix of urban and exurban populations are are both over 30 million people. But the issue is complex as correlation isn't causation, so we will see what it looks like in the next ten years in California with record numbers of gun owners and especially ccw-ers. Either way the data does not lead to the conclusion that guns make us safer in any way because so far none of the constituinal carry states show any statistical reduction in firearm homicides and violence and as stated above, in most cases show an opposite trend towards increasing gun homicide rates.



View attachment 192131

Your argument that guns do not make us safer in any way is complete nonsense. Let's be real here, there's more guns than people in this country. You can't put that back in the bag at this point, it's just not possible. Criminals do have guns, and they do commit crimes with them. Law abiding people having firearms to protect themselves with is the only protection against that. Most times cops only respond AFTER a crime has occurred, whereas an armed citizen can respond directly at the time the crime is taking place. Cops cannot be everywhere at once, nor is your safety their responsibility. Per your logic, we could just pass a nationwide gun ban tomorrow and all gun crime would stop? As Americans, our safety is our own responsibility, and carrying a firearm is how we ensure our safety. The right to protect ourselves is a basic human right, and a firearm is the equalizer that allows anyone to have an equal chance to defend themselves, no matter how small, weak, old, or poor. I do not care what the Supreme Court says, they are not the end all be all of everything. They are people, people with agendas and beliefs, just because they say something does not make it right. There are plenty of instances in which they have blatantly ruled in complete contradiction to what this country was founded on. I am a firm believer that every American has the right to own a firearm, a right to protect themselves and their property, and a right to speak their mind. I may disagree, I may think they are a complete moron, but as an American I support their right to be a moron.

 

[GunHoHulk]

I believe that it should be constitutional carry with no barriers but with some sort of state program for incentivized training. Several years back Sac county updated their qualms to those required for a security guard card. When you let the state(particularly CA) get involved in the qualification process you end up with buerocrats and anti gun zealots involved in the process of granting permission on who gets to exercise a constitutionally protected right and it becomes a quagmire. One stage involves shooting offhand and another involves shooting and reloading from a kneeling position. It’s not an issue for me but for a 60+ year old person age and body mechanics become an issue and I believe it’s wrong that those issues should preclude a person from the ability to defend themself.


On the other hand, I have been at a qual class and been swept by a person. And every course I e taken it’s alarming to see people’s proficiency to make a group at 7 yards. While these are concerns that warrant the call for more training I believe the trade off in allowing the government lackeys to get their hands on the qualification process isn’t worth the cost.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Your argument that guns do not make us safer in any way is complete nonsense. Let's be real here, there's more guns than people in this country. You can't put that back in the bag at this point, it's just not possible. Criminals do have guns, and they do commit crimes with them. Law abiding people having firearms to protect themselves with is the only protection against that. Most times cops only respond AFTER a crime has occurred, whereas an armed citizen can respond directly at the time the crime is taking place. Cops cannot be everywhere at once, nor is your safety their responsibility. Per your logic, we could just pass a nationwide gun ban tomorrow and all gun crime would stop? As Americans, our safety is our own responsibility, and carrying a firearm is how we ensure our safety. The right to protect ourselves is a basic human right, and a firearm is the equalizer that allows anyone to have an equal chance to defend themselves, no matter how small, weak, old, or poor. I do not care what the Supreme Court says, they are not the end all be all of everything. They are people, people with agendas and beliefs, just because they say something does not make it right. There are plenty of instances in which they have blatantly ruled in complete contradiction to what this country was founded on. I am a firm believer that every American has the right to own a firearm, a right to protect themselves and their property, and a right to speak their mind. I may disagree, I may think they are a complete moron, but as an American I support their right to be a moron.

You are basing that on a feeling and a concept though. The idea of personal agency is a nice one but where is the data that show it to be the case? Looking at the nationwide trends for violence in the chart above, look at when it peaked and think about the magazine and assault weapons ban from that time. By your logic you should see an increase in violence due to ordinary people being less able to defend themselves. Similar in California, what happened around the year 2000 but the handgun roster, why didn't we see an increasing trend due to less of a capacity to defend oneself? Only criminals have" assault weapons" here, right,? At best you could maybe argue it has no.effect at all because generally the people that want guns can get them even if they are only certain makes and models, and we still saw decreases in homicide. But another thing can also be true, that people like you that train can be safer than average but society in general could be less aware because not enough people train. Ultimately I'm not advocating for increasing restrictions but I'm wrestling with these topics because we have a 75% Democrat legislature and so a policy idea lacking data I feel is a non starter. You just won't get anywhere by bullting people who are already against your stance. I feel a much better tactic is to acknowledge that firearms are inherently dangerous but they are also not going anywhere so the state should facilitate training instead of making it harder. Anothoer example is, would you rather continue with the roster begging companies to make us "safe" or would you deal with getting a shall issue license, maybe it would even just be your CCW certification, and it would allow you off roster and "assault weapons" . Liberals love the idea of training and licenses so it's honestly not that far fetched. I'm just trying to be practical.

 

[ReaperCustom45]

You are basing that on a feeling and a concept though. The idea of personal agency is a nice one but where is the data that show it to be the case? Looking at the nationwide trends for violence in the chart above, look at when it peaked and think about the magazine and assault weapons ban from that time. By your logic you should see an increase in violence due to ordinary people being less able to defend themselves. Similar in California, what happened around the year 2000 but the handgun roster, why didn't we see an increasing trend due to less of a capacity to defend oneself? Only criminals have" assault weapons" here, right,? At best you could maybe argue it has no.effect at all because generally the people that want guns can get them even if they are only certain makes and models, and we still saw decreases in homicide. But another thing can also be true, that people like you that train can be safer than average but society in general could be less aware because not enough people train. Ultimately I'm not advocating for increasing restrictions but I'm wrestling with these topics because we have a 75% Democrat legislature and so a policy idea lacking data I feel is a non starter. You just won't get anywhere by bullting people who are already against your stance. I feel a much better tactic is to acknowledge that firearms are inherently dangerous but they are also not going anywhere so the state should facilitate training instead of making it harder. Anothoer example is, would you rather continue with the roster begging companies to make us "safe" or would you deal with getting a shall issue license, maybe it would even just be your CCW certification, and it would allow you off roster and "assault weapons" . Liberals love the idea of training and licenses so it's honestly not that far fetched. I'm just trying to be practical.

To your point, we also wont get anywhere with these people who want to strip your rights away by compromising with them. That's how we got crap like the roster, NFA, ect. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. They do not care about facts, or data, or any argument in the world we could give them. They want guns gone. Period. If they are to take such an extreme stance, it is reasonable for us to do the same. If this were really about making people safer, they wouldn't be passing bs like the excise tax or handgun roster, and then exempting themselves from it. It's about control, nothing more. And people compromising with "reasonable" restrictions are what led to to where we are now, and what will continue to restrict our rights until we have none left.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

To your point, we also wont get anywhere with these people who want to strip your rights away by compromising with them. That's how we got crap like the roster, NFA, ect. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. They do not care about facts, or data, or any argument in the world we could give them. They want guns gone. Period. If they are to take such an extreme stance, it is reasonable for us to do the same. If this were really about making people safer, they wouldn't be passing bs like the excise tax or handgun roster, and then exempting themselves from it. It's about control, nothing more. And people compromising with "reasonable" restrictions are what led to to where we are now, and what will continue to restrict our rights until we have none left.

what does an extreme stance get you though? it certainly won't get a bill through a 75% anti gun legislature. We are literally starting at zero and have no power. I don't think anyone ever thought the restrictions were reasonable ever they just wanted restrictions, there was never any compromise because gun owners were never part of the negotiation. On the near horizon is a potential reactivation of microstamping, if there's any chance of reversing that it has to be a practical solution. And there is an actual argument against it: Glock Switches. The only reason glock switches became a thing was because Ca froze any modern guns for close to 15 years and didn't allow handguns that were literally updated by the manufacturer to be safer to be sold here. Glock made gen 3s for California exclusively for years. The examples of how the roster made guns less safe is endless, Berettas with sights you can't change, no optic ready models, 20 year old XD models (those aren't unsafe they are just annoying and I hate looking at them). Guns work better and are safer with modern features. But they are gearing up to freeze the roster again. I do actually think that the majority of Dems that are into gun control actually think it makes them safer. But it's like the drug war, the more clandestine and underground you make it, with no ways to engage safely, the less safe it will be. Gun ownership and drugs should be treated similarly, like Bay Area Raves in the 1990s where you could take your drugs to the party and they would test them for aduturants and let you take them in a safe place with medics. Harm reduction is a much better tactic than trying to outlaw something that is easily smuggled from out of state.

Either way, taking a hard line stance doesn't go anywhere when you have no power, I don't see opening up the roster with the caveat of having to get qualified on the pistol like your ccw is that much of a compromise considering what we now have is nothing. I don't see it as a compromise, it's a negotiation.

 

[Gawernator]

Scared to answer? Lol.
Its a question set up to just argue, thats not whst im here for. We all know the obvious answer.
I just came to give my opinion on a question that was asked.
If people cant hit a target, they shouldnt carry, pretty simple.
If you cant shoot straight, you kill someone behind your target.
If your freedom of speech goes wrong, worst case scenario, you hurt someones feelings, and more than likely get punched in the same mouth that the freedom words came out of, lol.
In you guys logic, its ok for all the gang bangers to carry too? Shooting sideways, using punching motions on every trigger pull?

It’s already illegal for the gang bangers to carry their glocks with da switch

 

[grandpapeepap]

The "wild west" era also had quite a bit of gun restrictions on concealed carry or requiring you to check in with law enforcement with your firearms too right? 1800s had bans on concealed carry in quite a few states iirc. Just a trip down history lane

 

[Gawernator]

the states that have instituted constitutional carry have indeed seen increasing gun violence rates. For instance in the early 2010s California and Texas were about equal with 3 firearm homicides per 100k people, and while every state experienced a bump during covid, Californias numbers are back near 3 while Texas is closer to 6. Remember that constutional carry is pretty new and only started ~2015. Many of those states weren't even "shall issue" until relatively recently either. You see the same trend in just about every state that "liberalized" gun laws over the past dcade. I think it's a good question to ask how much it actually matter though, because even with texas doubling in firearm homicides it's like 2000 to 4000 a year out of a population of 30 million. But if you are in a blue state where most of the population doesn't shoot guns and just wants to be safe, how exactly do you sell policiy change to those people? I don't think it will ever happen if there aren't conditions attached which at least performatively allude to safety.

Yeah in CA we just don't report crimes anymore lol

 

[Jeffro_510]

Yeah in CA we just don't report crimes anymore lol

Half the time they wont even take a report unless its a violent crime.

 

[Gawernator]

The "wild west" era also had quite a bit of gun restrictions on concealed carry or requiring you to check in with law enforcement with your firearms too right? 1800s had bans on concealed carry in quite a few states iirc. Just a trip down history lane

Yes before the 1960's open carry was much more the norm and conceal carry was sus and dishonest. Now due to karen society we flipped it, now open carry is weird and CCW is "normal". Gotta keep the context in mind.