And many people have never looked at pornography since SCOTUS made it legal back when Hector was a pup. Should they have their 1st Amendment right suspended until they have demonstrated a knowledge of what is or isn't pornography?TVGuy wrote:Negative, no handling skills were taught.
I know I'm going to get hardcore flamed on this, but I don't think there is nearly enough training. Yes, it is your right to carry. The safety and proficiency levels of MANY people with CHLs is extremely low.
I've been to renewal classes (when that was still around) that multiple people had not fired their weapon since the last CHL proficiency test. That's completely irresponsible. I hate to say it, but I think there are more of those than people who go out even every six months...which is still not enough.
Many people have continued to attend church AND vote according to their consciences, as filtered through the lens of their religious beliefs. Should their right to vote be suspended until they understand all the nuances of "separation of church and state"?
I am NOT trying to flame you, but I AM trying to point out a flaw in your reasoning....to whit....we either begin by believing that keeping and bearing arms is a right by default, or we begin by believing that the keeping and bearing of arms is a permission granted. This is an important distinction for the following reasons......
One view: If we believe that it is a right by default, then we also accept licensing as an unpleasant but politically necessary status quo restriction on the full expression of our RKBA, in order that society not mandate our arrest for expressing that right; and we accept that the push should be toward the relaxing of restrictions, not toward increasing them.
The other view: If we believe that it is a permission granted, then we accept that the state may dictate any terms it chooses, up to and including the wholesale abolition across the board of the keeping and bearing of arms.
I am assuming that you belong to the former group, as do most of us. If you believe the former, then you also believe that there is a burden placed upon the state to prove that those people who don't fire their weapons since the last qualification actually constitute a threat to the general welfare. I understand that you feel it is a threat, but show me the actual numbers which prove that regular range trips lead to fewer NDs and injuries and increase public safety. The fact is, you can't find those numbers. In fact, it would be my personal guess that, as the frequency of range trips for the shooting public goes up, the frequency of accidental gunshot wounds—either self-inflicted or not—goes up accordingly. In fact, I think it is guaranteed that, across the board, as more people practice drawing and firing, more people shoot themselves in the leg, or worse yet, accidentally shoot someone else.
This is simple statistics. We know for a fact that handling firearms can be dangerous if the rules are ignored. But, we also know that even with a conscientious application of safety, there are risks. We also know for a fact that as people try to increase their speed of presentation, the attendant risk of a ND goes up for the simple reason that the rules get stretched. Furthermore, you don't really have any idea (none of us do) of how many of those who had never fired their weapons since their last qualification, have or have not practiced drawing and dry-firing at home, or have fired other non-carry weapons like long guns for instance. (For example, I personally shoot my rifles about twice as often as I do my handguns.....and yet, the safety rules are all the same for both long gun and handgun platforms.) The dirty little secret at pistol ranges which conduct pistol competitions (like at my gun club - Dallas Pistol Club) is that self-inflicted gunshot injuries DO occasionally happen during matches, and during practice for matches, despite the best efforts of well-qualified RSOs, and despite the fact that members are well-versed in the rules of safety. It is a calculated risk that people accept in order to enter the matches......and they sign a release to that effect, absolving the match directors of any responsibility for that possibility.
So my conclusion is that you cannot separate risk from practice, and the more you practice, the more opportunity there is for risk. The risk may decrease for you as an individual the more you practice, but it never goes away completely, and across the board, I don't think you can say that is increased safety would be true for everyone. And some people are just plain stupid and will never learn. But the bottom line question is this: absent proof positive, does the state have a mandate to require more frequent qualifications to ensure that CHLs practice safe gun handling? The burden is on the state to prove that A) it has such a mandate, and B), that such a mandate will actually reduce unintended injuries rather than increasing them. If you believe that the burden is upon the individual CHL holder to prove it, then you are reflexively, and I am sure, unintentionally, coming down on the side of RKBA as a permission, not as a right.
I've tried to explain that with some logic, and without flaming you. Does what I say make any sense to you?