Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something I don't understand. Anti-gun politicians have fought concealed carry legislation over and over. Even Obama, was criticized last sunday on meet the press by NYC mayor Bloomberg for signing legislation allowing people to carrya concealed weapon in a national park. My question is, is that if someone goes through the process of getting a permit which usually involves training and classes, what is wrong with that?
Take Ohio for instance. In this state you have to go through 12 hours of in class and at the range training. After that you have to pass an accuracy test with your firearm.
I mean, if we truly want to talk about "common sense reform and regulation" I think this is one way to start. I realise there are a few states where no permit of any kind is required, this needs to change. I think a national Right-to-carry law passed at the federal level, pre-empting all state laws that are less stringent, allowing someone who has undergone training classes and so forth the right to carry a weapon where allowed. This would include teachers or employees only at government facilties. All business owners and private property owners should have the right to decide whether or not to allow somone in posession of a permit to carry in their establishment or on their property.
IMO, 12hrs of class/range training is not enough to provide someone with the critical thinking skills to properly assess a situation where a firearm may, or may not be, necessary.
Please tell me why in 2012/13 why citizens need to carry guns in public?
For the same reason that we pay police officers to carry guns in public. In other words, just in case those guns are needed to stop a violent individual from hurting someone.
IMO, 12hrs of class/range training is not enough to provide someone with the critical thinking skills to properly assess a situation where a firearm may, or may not be, necessary.
Is this opinion based on the fact you have 100 hours training? Have you ever trained anyone to shoot a gun? I hope your opinion is based on facts, not feelings with no experience.
....Take Ohio for instance. In this state you have to go through 12 hours of in class and at the range training. After that you have to pass an accuracy test with your firearm....
Might have been what you did, but I have friends in Ohio that got a CCW in a 3 hour afternoon class, took the written test as a group, and did some discharges. Everyone passed and there was essentially no way to fail.
People that are against CCW are - because it leads to more people solving problems with a firearm, that could have been solved via better means.
How could anyone be against requiring background checks on 100% of gun sales?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
