What should be the minimal shooting skill one must demonstrate to carry concealed

[Marswolf]

I agree, its just a shame that VT seems to be a haven for pedophiles.

It's a haven for nudists too. Must get interesting in February.

I don't know about pedophile havens, but the world certainly seems filled with folks like that.

[John Wall]

As one who trains Armed Professionals and Citizens, I think folks who carry should be able to responsibly load, unload, demonstrate safe handling skills and be able to hit a target at close range. I consider close range 7 yards and closer. It will be hard to justify firing shots at longer range in court.

However, don't forget!!!

A 100% shooter ON THE RANGE will be a 10%-15% shooter IN A LETHAL CONFRONTATION.

[edellson]

True Story. While I was making a delivery to one of the prisons in Nashville the gaurd was searching my truck when he removed his revolver and motioned for me to open the back door and with the gun in his hand the barrel passed in front of me as he swung his hand around. This happened once more, before I told him firmly he needed to holster his gun. This happens way to much innocently but give us a break. Learn how to carry and shoot that gun safely. I would prefer to have everyone demonstrate they know how to handle their piece.

[Guest gsbell]

There are a few states with no training requirements and they don't have problems with nimrods running around shooting innocent bystanders. I doubt we here in TN would have any issues either.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Not sure about a shooting skill... but as long as a person is a law-abiding citizen, can see well enough to distinguish a threat and hit it, and has the dexterity to pull a trigger, they should not be prohibited from owning/carrying a weapon (as opposed to 'given permission' to do so).

amen to that.

[Guest grimel]

I think you should be able to hit what you are aiming at.

For public safety and for all weapons permit holder's sake we don't need people who can't hit their target spraying the surrounding area and causing a bad situation to become even worse.

and the hit rate for the supposedly highly trained police do what to the surrounding area???

[Marswolf]

Remember, the question her is not the level of skill that it would be good to possess if you pack but "What should be the minimal shooting skill one must demonstrate to carry concealed "

The answer for me is "none". It's a right.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

For one thing, what is meant by "moderate?" Does it mean keeping it within a paper plate with a two hand hold at 25 yards? Or does it mean keeping it on a sillouhette at the same distance? Or at 15 yards? Is it up to me to decide what is moderate? I'd say 90 degrees.

I have no problem at all with a test one should take to demonstrate their skill for general (as opposed to simply concealed) carry. I just don't think the government should administer it, to me that's an egregious abridgement of the second amendment. Rather, I'd welcome an NRA test that certifies one is competent to carry. Then let that certification be a prerequisite for the liability insurance of a gun owner, and let it be admissable in court as part of a defense against negligence.

[Guest jackdog]

If you look at Vermont, Indiana and a few other states you will see that a competency level is not required and they do not have horrific results.

Mars you are 100% correct it is a right plain and simple.

[GhostDog]

If the gun-banners don't have the votes to get their way, they will try something else (witness the lawsuit attacks on gun makers during the Clinton years). They won't "deprive anyone of their rights", they'll just make it too expensive or difficult for us regular folks.

You can be sure, however, that their cronies and "friends" will have access to whatever they want. This can also be applied to "socialized medicine", which is rearing it's head again. Do you think your treatment would have been as fast and as good as Ted Kennedy's was if you had "gov't health care"? Don't kid yourself.

[Guest Phantom6]

It's a haven for nudists too. Must get interesting in February.

No big deals in February, I'd Say.

Now on to the question at hand-

While IMHO we would be talking about a right here and therefore NO requirement should be made for carry with the possible exception of age, it would be nice to know that folks know how their guns run and understand the tactics of surviving a gun fight. If you trust your life only to the training that comes in the box you will end up in the box sooner rather than later more often than not in a shooting encounter. I say that not so much as an instructor that makes a living from instruction but more as an individual that hates to see folks get hurt or killed due to their own lack of concern. It's like most anything else; The higher the level of training, the greater the skill level in the endevor. That being said, like Marswolf (I believe), I don't buy that "blood in the streets" arguement and if someone does run afoul of the law with an unrightious shoot then the rest of T.C.A will take care of that.

How did I vote? I say legally none. Responsibly? As much as you can afford.

[Guest DylisTN]

None, once you reach the age of majority you are afforded the rights and protection under the constitution. The 2nd amendment states this is a right and heller upheld that to a degree.

OK right to own a gun including a handgun! I agree no tests, no one business but yours. Even in a crowded city apartment building, and in cars.

But we're talking here about a gun in a pocket or purse. Potentially carried into crowded places. The supermarket, buses, banks, restaurants . . .

You will have to handle that gun, in the close proximity of others. If the lady behind me at Wal-Mart has a gun in her purse, she should know the safety features of the gun. I don’t want to get shot while she’s trying to find her ATM card.

I’m in favor of a minimal test to weed those who would close their eyes and start spraying. Or who’s hands shake too badly, the blind . . .

The TN requirements do this. They raise the lowest common denominator the same as a driving test.

[Guest slothful1]

It should be same as the level of literacy legally required to purchase and carry an ink pen.

[Marswolf]

Ignoring the rights issue, from a practical standpoint states that require no test of level of proficiency just don't have a problem. It's an imagined problem that doesn't exist in reality. And it buys into the gun-grabber illogic of imagined blood running in the streets.

People who will be a problem with a handgun don't bother to get a permit either. A state mandated level of proficiency does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It just makes it easier for the thugs by disarming decent people.

[Guest Phantom6]

BTW, as an aside to my provious post, we do not tell our students what the state's minimum standards are regarding the shooting qualifiation though as any instructor knows is the most often asked question before and during the classes. We tell them what WE expect which is "all shots aimed center mass with no less than 70 percent of those hits being within the 7 ring". Would we pass someone that didn't meet our "requirements"? Of course we would (provided they met the state's minimums) because the state's requirements are so much lower. Have we ever had a student fail to meet our "requirements"? Once but I met with her at the range for an hour the following day and she shot within our levels of expectation. People will work to attain the levels that are set for them. Set the level of expectation low and that is the result that you will see. Set the bar higher but still attainable by the avg. individual and you will see a much higher level of results.

For those of you that are keeping score, on a standard B-27 target, 70% of 48 rounds (the minimum number of rounds to be fired on the target) is 33.6 or realisticly 34 rounds. If all of those were to be in the 7 ring only that would be a score of 238 out of a possible best of 480. The highest score we have had was a 480. This has happened only once but we have had 25 or 30 within a point or two. The lowest score we have ever had which was the one lady that I brought back for an extra hour of instruction and qualification was about 290, give or take a hit or two (on her qualification attempt that second day). The bulk of the rest of our students will qualify with a score of 396 or better.

[Mike.357]

First, carry is a right and not legitimately subject to licensing any more than freedom of speech. Second, I haven't heard of any bloodbaths caused by carry in AK or VT.

thank you Mars

[Guest jwp]

Point blank, if there wasn't an industry built around the issue there wouldn't be any discussion.

[Marswolf]

I don't have a question that someone who can not pass the shooting part of the carry class shouldn't be packing. And it would be a really good idea to achieve a lot more proficiency than that. But the reality is that the vast majority of self protection shots are at 5-12 feet. Most people can do that if they can actually pull the trigger. I suspect that is a bigger problem than hitting the target.