Email to LTC Instructors

[heavygunner8]

You just identified the problem with you. You think you need to talk sense into anyone who doesn't think like you. Just like a liberal.

I am an LTC instructor. The second amendment is clear. Do you support mandatory training and testing to exercise your 1st amendment rights? How about before voting?

In fact, that would be a good idea and certainly make the country as a whole better. It's also a terrible analogy to equate the right to free speech by any mentally deficient person/lacking basic firearm training vs having same person carry a gun and walk around in close proximity to other members of the public.

And like I said before, if people think the LTC classes are a joke, maybe it's time we increased it's requirements to pass instead of getting rid of it.

 

[BRD@66]

Savage? Is that you?

 

[Younggun]

In fact, that would be a good idea and certainly make the country as a whole better. It's also a terrible analogy to equate the right to free speech by any mentally deficient person/lacking basic firearm training vs having same person carry a gun and walk around in close proximity to other members of the public.

And like I said before, if people think the LTC classes are a joke, maybe it's time we increased it's requirements to pass instead of getting rid of it.

Do you have an LTC?

Do you feel you could safely carry a firearm in public?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Admin message: Keep this thread civil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Savage? Is that you?

I met him at the last meet. He's not Savage, he simply has an opinion different than many of ours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heavygunner8]

Do you have an LTC?

Do you feel you could safely carry a firearm in public?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do have an LTC. And I'm glad I do, because prior to obtaining one, I wouldn't have known a lot of the basic laws like I do now. I'm also a lot more accurate with my gun having trained in anticipation for the shooting portion of the exam. I over estimated it's difficulty and trained enough to actually get a 250/250 on the test easily. So yes, I believe the LTC class exam is needed, and if it's a joke, the requirements for it needs to go up.

 

[Dawico]

And like I said before, if people think the LTC classes are a joke, maybe it's time we increased it's requirements to pass instead of getting rid of it.

What do you think a proficiency requirement should be? You would have to put a person in a high stress situation to see how they would really react. That just isn't realistic.

I just want to add that I disagree with your viewpoint completely. I am okay with CC.

 

[Kar98]

06/07 signs only apply to LTC holders.

It does not apply to the person carrying a Kel-Tec sub2000 in a laptop bag

Now what kind of person would do that???

 

[heavygunner8]

What do you think a proficiency requirement should be? You would have to put a person in a high stress situation to see how they would really react. That just isn't realistic.

I just want to add that I disagree with your viewpoint completely. I am okay with CC.

A good first step is to make it difficult enough such that somebody that has never shot a gun before shouldn't be able to pass it. When I took my exam, there were a couple of people that never shot a gun before and got a 176/250, they passed by 1 point, which is quite ridiculous.

 

[Hoji]

A good first step is to make it difficult enough such that somebody that has never shot a gun before shouldn't be able to pass it. When I took my exam, there were a couple of people that never shot a gun before and got a 176/250, they passed by 1 point, which is quite ridiculous.

Yeah, like winning a football game with a last second field goal. Should not be allowed.

Get over it. Passed is passed.

 

[heavygunner8]

Yeah, like winning a football game with a last second field goal. Should not be allowed.

Get over it. Passed is passed.

Right, because a sports game is equally as important as making sure somebody carrying a gun doesnt spray bullets everywhere in public during self defense. I won't get over it, sorry.

 

[txinvestigator]

Right, because a sports game is equally as important as making sure somebody carrying a gun doesnt spray bullets everywhere in public during self defense. I won't get over it, sorry.

If you think the current restrictions or any level will make sure someone doesn't spray bullets everywhere in public you re delusional or being disingenuous

 

[Hoji]

Right, because a sports game is equally as important as making sure somebody carrying a gun doesnt spray bullets everywhere in public during self defense. I won't get over it, sorry.

If they had scored a 174, they would have failed.

Congratulations on your 250. I have done that blindfolded and with my support hand.

The test is to show BASIC profiency and operation of a handgun. If they passed, they passed.

 

[txinvestigator]

A good first step is to make it difficult enough such that somebody that has never shot a gun before shouldn't be able to pass it. When I took my exam, there were a couple of people that never shot a gun before and got a 176/250, they passed by 1 point, which is quite ridiculous.

I can make the test so that YOU can't pass. You Ok with that?

 

[Coiled]

Right, because a sports game is equally as important as making sure somebody carrying a gun doesnt spray bullets everywhere in public during self defense. I won't get over it, sorry.

That's not what Hoji said nor implied. You now come off as arguing for arguments sake.

 

[heavygunner8]

If they had scored a 174, they would have failed.

Congratulations on your 250. I have done that blindfolded and with my support hand.

The test is to show BASIC profiency and operation of a handgun. If they passed, they passed.

I appreciate you giving out your unsolicited comment about your shooting abilities, but thank you for proving my point that the test needs to go up in difficulty. My opinion is basic proficiency shouldn't include the ability to pass while having never felt the recoil of a gun.

That's not what Hoji said nor implied. You now come off as arguing for arguments sake.

Yes he did imply it, when he used it as an analogy.

I can make the test so that YOU can't pass. You Ok with that?

And that accomplishes what? Yea, okay, nothing.

 

[Hoji]

I appreciate you giving out your unsolicited comment about your shooting abilities, but thank you for proving my point that the test needs to go up in difficulty. My opinion is basic proficiency shouldn't include the ability to pass while having never felt the recoil of a gun.



Yes he did imply it, when he used it as an analogy.

And that accomplishes what? Yea, okay, nothing.

Well, you did open that door with your post about your score on the profiency exercise.

Again, passed means passed. You should make arguments based on facts and statistics as opposed to how you feel.

If your argument is completely about how you feel, facts be damned, then fine. Just be big enough to come out and say so.

 

[Younggun]

Is there any real world evidence that the proficiency test is lacking, such as a common occurrence of innocent bystanders being hit by stray bullets from a license holder during a self defense situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brains]

Man, some of the naysayers in this thread make it sound like every time a gun clears the holster by someone carrying under CC, they're going to spin around in a circle, eyes closed, waving their hands wildly, pulling the trigger as fast as they can.

There's a statistic nobody has mentioned yet, because it obviously would never exist with any accuracy, which is how often a 'show of force' deployment has served to de-escalate a confrontation - both licensed or "illegally" carrying. There's also the unattainable statistic of how often people (like myself) went to get the CHL, sit through the ten hours, pay all the money, get printed like a perp, NOT prepare for the shooting portion at all, and breeze through the thing because the skills were already there. Lets face it, I'm no bullseye shooter but I can hit the broad side of a barn with 100% reliability. Lots of instances that we cannot count that are directly related to this whole nonsense (IMHO) argument about whether people "need" to be trained/licensed/restricted against CC.

The proof is right in front of our eyes. CC hasn't increased gun deaths. If you want to truly make a difference, why not train those fine gentlemen up in Chicago driving up the homicide rates? I bet licensing and training will solve all their issues.

 

[heavygunner8]

Is there any real world evidence that the proficiency test is lacking, such as a common occurrence of innocent bystanders being hit by stray bullets from a license holder during a self defense situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So now we're back to saying the LTC license exam is adequate? I never actually started the idea that it was lacking. Somebody on the first page of this thread, stated the LTC exam doesn't prove a thing, well by following that logic, then I said we need to increase the rigor of the exam. And now that I've actually done that, we're back to saying the LTC exam is adequate. Okay then. As much as I think the rigor should go up, let's just keep the current LTC requirements around to make sure people can actually shoot to a basic level.