How often do you practice pistol shooting?

[toddnjoyce]

No one is saying you have to be an IDPA/USPSA champion to get a license. But there is a middle ground between someone who is shooting rounds into the ceiling, and a guy who is able to double tap a 3" inch target at 50 yards with a sub-compact.

That's the problem with these discussions sometimes, people aren't mature enough to discuss nuance, always going towards the "extremes" to make their point. We can be more mature than this.

I can discuss nuance all day long. Let’s start the discussion with what privileges a Texas License to Carry provides above and beyond what permitless carry provides. That is what determines what, if any, knowledge, skills and/or abilities need to be demonstrated and to what proficiency level is required to obtain the LTC.

 

[Tnhawk]

The 2nd Amendment has few restrictions for a reason.

 

[RankAmateur]

No one is saying you have to be an IDPA/USPSA champion to get a license. But there is a middle ground between someone who is shooting rounds into the ceiling, and a guy who is able to double tap a 3" inch target at 50 yards with a sub-compact.

That's the problem with these discussions sometimes, people aren't mature enough to discuss nuance, always going towards the "extremes" to make their point. We can be more mature than this.

Please don't interpret this response as another kneejerk toward the extreme. In broader terms, I think the "camps" in this discussion are segregated by an attitude/opinion on one side that there are reasonable characteristics/qualifications that a governments can or should impose in order the regulate firearms ownership/posession/carry, and the belief on the other side that the license itself is the issue.

As I was the one who brought up IDPA/USPSA in the first place, I don't think anyone is suggesting classification by those organizations be used to qualify anyone for licensing. Rather, I'm interpreting this part of the derailed discussion (sorry OP) to be about qualifying for a license in the first place. I would submit that when you start discussing which qualifications are appropriate, you've started by already accepting that licensing (for ownership/carry/etc.) is acceptable in order to exercise a right. In effect, accepting licensing is acknowledgement that owning/bearing arms in NOT a right. I'd assume that most on this list wouldn't make such a concession.

@benenglish, I'm not arguing your point of the peripheral usefulness of a state-issued LTC, nor the wishfulness vs. current reality of our situation.

 

[CaliGunner]

I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you on this one. I recognize that learning more skills is always better. You're absolutely right about that.

As always, reasonable people may disagree, as in here:



Full blog entry here: https://blog.krtraining.com/texas-handgun-association-2022-conference/

I actually like ASP, and John's channel and watch it everyday he drops a video, so I won't poo-poo him, and the stats are clear. 90% of actual "defensive gun encounters" don't even involve a single bullet being shot. Once the gun is pulled, most bad guys make a hasty retreat. So by that logic, someone may ask why do we carry ammo if 90% of gun encounters don't involve a single bullet being shot? It's because at the end of the bell curve is where you don't want to be unprepared.
I'll let Massad Ayoob's explain why a spare mag is a good idea.



For those who don't want to view the video, Ayoob basically says:
1) We don't actually have a database out there that tracks amount of rounds expended during a gun encounter. People say 'average of 3 shot', a lot of people online like to conjecture, but it simply doesn't exist.

According to Tom Givens who actually does record this data (25-year career in law enforcement, author of numerous concealed carry books), he has recorded 70+ encounters where 11+ rounds where used in an encounter.

Now for the vast amount of guys here who carry 1911s, well... Regardless of how exceedingly rare it may be to hit 11+ rounds during an encounter, it does and has happened. A spare mag would be useful here.

2) Lance Thomas - A watch store owner in LA defended himself from gang bangers 4 separate times where he expended 17 rounds during each incident.

[VIDEO] The LA Watchmaker That Defended His Life Four Times -- His Lessons Learned About Concealed Carry – Concealed Nation

Lot of folks around here likely remember the Justice Files. But when we have conversations about real life concealed carry gun use, we have to take a moment to remember the pivotal lessons delivered in one episode about the Los Angeles watch repair man who refused to be a victim. We’re talking...

concealednation.org

3) Magazine failure. Like Ammo, the container of the ammo can fail.

 

[CaliGunner]

Likely crossed paths at some point or another out at Hodge.

My primary spot was BLM but hard to access b/c it was gated by the Border Patrol down in the Otay Mountains in south San Diego. A good friend of mine, retired S.D. County Sheriff had a master gate key to any of those BP entrances. We could drive in, shoot and BBQ, chat it up with the BP whenever they passed through.

Good times indeed but for sure you got it right - I also would not go back for double my salary. In fact, even if I were the recent powerball $400+ million take home winner I would not go back there!

That sounds like you had a good spot.

I stopped going to Hodge Road once it got too popular (somewhere around 2017-2018, or so). People kept leaving garbage too, and the Riverside sheriffs started to harass us. Not to mention the one time I heard a bullet whiz by when I was riding ATVs out there, but that's a story for another day.

Out here in Texas I'd love to find something equivalent but if I don't, it's all good. I'm thinking of joining a local gun club with a nice outdoor range.

 

[CaliGunner]

I can discuss nuance all day long. Let’s start the discussion with what privileges a Texas License to Carry provides above and beyond what permitless carry provides. That is what determines what, if any, knowledge, skills and/or abilities need to be demonstrated and to what proficiency level is required to obtain the LTC.

Well, first off, what is your opinion on licensing "at all"? I don't think I ever asked you that. Just to let it all out, I'm okay with zero licensing, but I do realize that licensing from a political standpoint makes concealed carry more palatable to "moderates".

My opinion means little in the vast array of political leanings that inhabit the entire state of Texas.

 

[CaliGunner]

Please don't interpret this response as another kneejerk toward the extreme. In broader terms, I think the "camps" in this discussion are segregated by an attitude/opinion on one side that there are reasonable characteristics/qualifications that a governments can or should impose in order the regulate firearms ownership/posession/carry, and the belief on the other side that the license itself is the issue.

As I was the one who brought up IDPA/USPSA in the first place, I don't think anyone is suggesting classification by those organizations be used to qualify anyone for licensing. Rather, I'm interpreting this part of the derailed discussion (sorry OP) to be about qualifying for a license in the first place. I would submit that when you start discussing which qualifications are appropriate, you've started by already accepting that licensing (for ownership/carry/etc.) is acceptable in order to exercise a right. In effect, accepting licensing is acknowledgement that owning/bearing arms in NOT a right. I'd assume that most on this list wouldn't make such a concession.

@benenglish, I'm not arguing your point of the peripheral usefulness of a state-issued LTC, nor the wishfulness vs. current reality of our situation.

Personally I'm okay with NO licensing, meaning anyone can carry a gun regardless of their skill level, or proficiency. If they can't hit the side of a barn, then I still believe in their right to carry, that's me personally.

But if we are in a world where are going to differentiate between licensing and "constitutional carry", I think the proficiency test should reflect a minimum level of proficiency. I'm not saying "prevent someone from exercising a right" (that's why we have constitutional carry).

But if we're going to go through the whole process of participating in a licensing system, then I don't consider the ability to "reload" your weapon a barrier to licensing. I simply don't, and I'm not changing my mind on that. If you can't figure out a malfunction, reload your weapon, and get back on target, then I "personally" don't consider you proficient at handling a pistol in a defensive encounter.

If there isn't a minimum of skill (some middle ground between shooting bullets into the ceiling and IDPA champ), then why have a licensing system at all?

 

[TX oddball]

The 2nd Amendment has few restrictions for a reason.

..shall not be infringed.

Having government impose more requirements, restrictions on gun rights, including concealed carry, is an abomination.

If anything, we need far LESS. And adding more "requirements" to concealed carry is just plain bullshit. It ain't a driver's license. Because driving is a privilege, and owning firearms is a God-Given right.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Well, first off, what is your opinion on licensing "at all"? I don't think I ever asked you that. Just to let it all out, I'm okay with zero licensing, but I do realize that licensing from a political standpoint makes concealed carry more palatable to "moderates".

My opinion means little in the vast array of political leanings that inhabit the entire state of Texas.

My opinion on an LTC is exactly what the state says it is in the statute. It provides a benefit to the license holder. Nothing more, nothing less.
TGC Sec. 411.202. LICENSE A BENEFIT. The issuance of a license under this subchapter is a benefit to the license holder for purposes of those sections of the Penal Code to which the definition of "benefit" under Section 1.07, Penal Code, applies.

GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 411. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
….
(7) "Benefit" means anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage, including benefit to any other person in whose welfare the beneficiary is interested.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

statutes.capitol.texas.gov

 

[MTA]

I actually like ASP, and John's channel and watch it everyday he drops a video, so I won't poo-poo him, and the stats are clear. 90% of actual "defensive gun encounters" don't even involve a single bullet being shot. Once the gun is pulled, most bad guys make a hasty retreat. So by that logic, someone may ask why do we carry ammo if 90% of gun encounters don't involve a single bullet being shot? It's because at the end of the bell curve is where you don't want to be unprepared.
I'll let Massad Ayoob's explain why a spare mag is a good idea.



For those who don't want to view the video, Ayoob basically says:
1) We don't actually have a database out there that tracks amount of rounds expended during a gun encounter. People say 'average of 3 shot', a lot of people online like to conjecture, but it simply doesn't exist.

According to Tom Givens who actually does record this data (25-year career in law enforcement, author of numerous concealed carry books), he has recorded 70+ encounters where 11+ rounds where used in an encounter.

Now for the vast amount of guys here who carry 1911s, well... Regardless of how exceedingly rare it may be to hit 11+ rounds during an encounter, it does and has happened. A spare mag would be useful here.

2) Lance Thomas - A watch store owner in LA defended himself from gang bangers 4 separate times where he expended 17 rounds during each incident.

[VIDEO] The LA Watchmaker That Defended His Life Four Times -- His Lessons Learned About Concealed Carry – Concealed Nation

Lot of folks around here likely remember the Justice Files. But when we have conversations about real life concealed carry gun use, we have to take a moment to remember the pivotal lessons delivered in one episode about the Los Angeles watch repair man who refused to be a victim. We’re talking...

concealednation.org

3) Magazine failure. Like Ammo, the container of the ammo can fail.

Gotta plan for the scenario you are most likely to encounter. I think people forget that sometimes it can be more than one scumbag trying to kill you. Id rather have the extra rounds always

 

[Sam7sf]

If you can't figure out a malfunction, reload your weapon, and get back on target, then I "personally" don't consider you proficient at handling a pistol in a defensive encounter.

Mother in law has rheumatoid arthritis. She’s likely dead in the water for mag changes. All she can do is shoot someone at near ready. That’s trainable and if it were up to me anyone similar to her disability would automatically get a permit after basic training.

 

[RankAmateur]

Personally I'm okay with NO licensing, meaning anyone can carry a gun regardless of their skill level, or proficiency. If they can't hit the side of a barn, then I still believe in their right to carry, that's me personally.

But if we are in a world where are going to differentiate between licensing and "constitutional carry", I think the proficiency test should reflect a minimum level of proficiency. I'm not saying "prevent someone from exercising a right" (that's why we have constitutional carry).

But if we're going to go through the whole process of participating in a licensing system, then I don't consider the ability to "reload" your weapon a barrier to licensing. I simply don't, and I'm not changing my mind on that. If you can't figure out a malfunction, reload your weapon, and get back on target, then I "personally" don't consider you proficient at handling a pistol in a defensive encounter.

If there isn't a minimum of skill (some middle ground between shooting bullets into the ceiling and IDPA champ), then why have a licensing system at all?

Think I'm beating a dead horse so please forgive me. I think we're agreeing? No licensing is the proper state with regard to a right. "Constitutional Carry" should define the state where NO licensing is necessary as the constitution functions to restrict what the government may do (it does not define the right). In effect, the founders recognized ownership/bearing of arms as a god-given "natural" right, and wrote the amendment to specifically enjoin the government from restricting that right.

I'm presuming that you're not intending to suggest that "...a world where we are going to differentiate between licensing and "constitutional carry"" is proper (as you've stated that you're "OK" with no licensing. I'm simply suggesting that that statement about a world where both constitutional carry and licensing CAN simultaneously exist in the same space is fundamentally illogical. If we truly have constitutional carry, then no licensing can exist to restrict the right. If licensing is practiced, you don't have constitutional carry. I'll stop being a pedantic ass now (grin).

 

[CaliGunner]

Mother in law has rheumatoid arthritis. She’s likely dead in the water for mag changes. All she can do is shoot someone at near ready. That’s trainable and if it were up to me anyone similar to her disability would automatically get a permit after basic training.

But why does she need any permit, that's what I'm trying to figure out. We have constitutional carry and most here (I would assume nearly all) would support no licensing.

So why even have licensing? This is more of a philosophical exercise at this point.

 

[Axxe55]

But if we are in a world where are going to differentiate between licensing and "constitutional carry", I think the proficiency test should reflect a minimum level of proficiency. I'm not saying "prevent someone from exercising a right" (that's why we have constitutional carry).

But if we're going to go through the whole process of participating in a licensing system, then I don't consider the ability to "reload" your weapon a barrier to licensing. I simply don't, and I'm not changing my mind on that. If you can't figure out a malfunction, reload your weapon, and get back on target, then I "personally" don't consider you proficient at handling a pistol in a defensive encounter.

Most people that understand, and support the 2nd Amendment are perfectly content with "permitless carry"

You seem perfectly okay with discriminating against people with disabilities then. Because there are probably plenty of people with disabilities that would never meet your requirements for proficiency with a firearm.

 

[Sam7sf]

But why does she need any permit, that's what I'm trying to figure out. We have constitutional carry and most here (I would assume nearly all) would support no licensing.

So why even have licensing? This is more of a philosophical exercise at this point.

If we have constitutional carry why do you need a permit? Maybe she wants the same perk with a 4473 you get.

You posted an opinion how inferior someone can be.

 

[paknheat]

Mother in law has rheumatoid arthritis. She’s likely dead in the water for mag changes. All she can do is shoot someone at near ready. That’s trainable and if it were up to me anyone similar to her disability would automatically get a permit after basic training.

I had a customer, like your mother in law, back in AZ. Her logic for getting the permit was no waiting for background check on the 4473 when she bought a new gun.

She’s a feisty one for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[CaliGunner]

View attachment 337964
Think I'm beating a dead horse so please forgive me. I think we're agreeing? No licensing is the proper state with regard to a right. "Constitutional Carry" should define the state where NO licensing is necessary as the constitution functions to restrict what the government may do (it does not define the right). In effect, the founders recognized ownership/bearing of arms as a god-given "natural" right, and wrote the amendment to specifically enjoin the government from restricting that right.

I'm presuming that you're not intending to suggest that "...a world where we are going to differentiate between licensing and "constitutional carry"" is proper (as you've stated that you're "OK" with no licensing. I'm simply suggesting that that statement about a world where both constitutional carry and licensing CAN simultaneously exist in the same space is fundamentally illogical. If we truly have constitutional carry, then no licensing can exist to restrict the right. If licensing is practiced, you don't have constitutional carry. I'll stop being a pedantic ass now (grin).

View attachment 337969

Yes, basically, why even have licensing at all where someone needs to sign off on you being "proficient"?

At this point the only real advantage I am looking forward to with my LTC is not having to do a NICS check when buying a gun. LTC holders are just as restricted as constitutional carry people when it comes to 30.06 signs and 51% signs. Apparently LTC holders can carry their guns in some government buildings, like the Capital building for instance. Not a huge perk for me admittedly.

I'd love it if in the future Texas gets rid of all "gun free zones" and allowed us to defend ourselves and others regardless of some arbitrary zone. I'm not saying it would prevent an Uvalde type incident, but damn, give these people a fighting chance because the lunatics like those at Uvalde or the Indiana mall aren't going to be stopped by 30.06 signs, I can guarantee that 100%.

 

[Sam7sf]

I had a customer, like your mother in law, back in AZ. Her logic for getting the permit was no waiting for background check on the 4473 when she bought a new gun.

She’s a feisty one for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s the example I used lol.

My mil is a firecracker.

 

[CaliGunner]

If we have constitutional carry why do you need a permit? Maybe she wants the same perk with a 4473 you get.

You posted an opinion how inferior someone can be.

That's honestly the only perk for an LTC I'm looking forward to and it has zero to do with conceal carrying.

I didn't mean to insinuate your mother-in-law is inferior, that's not my intent, but I'm simply pointing out I don't get the point of a licensing system at all if we're not going to have standards. Like having a pilot's license, or even a forklift license. There's a certain standard of proficiency expected once the license is granted in pretty much all facets of life, am I right or wrong?

If we say "there should be no standard", then I say "there should be no license".

 

[Axxe55]

If we have constitutional carry why do you need a permit? Maybe she wants the same perk with a 4473 you get.

You posted an opinion how inferior someone can be.

Maybe the OP would like to shoot against me one day. I have never had a permit and have been carrying long before they even had the permit system. Hell, I'm even legally blind in the state of Texas!