done....
edited
How bout this. One of the most common arguements against OC is that "people who OC won't have the proper training, no retention holster,..." Well, why doesn't the state make it law that they (the state) must provide training on weapons manipulation, retention, target identification, etc., at no cost to the indavidual? That way everyone could get the proper training without becoming "a danger to people around them" while openly carrying. Please stay away from all the logical fallicies. I'm not talking some badass course that makes everyone a "gun fighter", but is a few days long and teaches people more than basics. Thoughts?
Why can't people who want to carry pay for their own training. The government pays for too much for special interest groups already.
They can. Some anti openy carriers argue that the training is too expensive and not everyone can afford it. The hypothetical state provided training would not be mandatory, just an option. I'd rather go pay for my own. 99% of the time, what you pay for is going to be better quality than what is free. Just trying to throw options out there.
Absolutely not. Adding more laws and restrictions is not what I'm looking for here. As it is now, people are allowed to take the 8 hour class and registered for concealed carry. That class is primarily to teach you the laws and responsibility you are taking when doing so. That's fine and as it turns out, some folks take the class and decide they do not want all that responsibility.
If OC passed, I don't think anyone who believes they are not ready for THAT responsibility would be carrying just because they could.
The state would never fund this (in its current financial conundrum particularly). Most gun people know their own level of competence with a firearm and act responsibly based on that. If they feel they are only comfortable owning a gun to keep at home, that's what they do. Are there people out there that carry concealed and are NOT very competent at the range? Sure. But they also are probably competent to carry responsibly - even if they cant hit there target without emptying the clip.
Its legal to drive a car after a certain age and you have to pass a test. Preparing for this test won't teach you how to drive, it will teach you the laws in which you must operate your car. Its up to you to take a defensive driving course and practice your driving skills. OC should be no different. Its up to you to know how to use your weapon and if they want to require you take a test about the laws of doing so, then fine. If OC passed, i dont think anyone who believes they are not ready for THAT responsibility would be carrying just because they could.
Ultimately I want to see NO gun laws or restrictions like AZ - other than restrictions against felons.
Then if you operate your weapon in a manner irresponsibly, pay the consequences.
Very good points! I guess I should have made myself more clear on the topic. Like you, I would like to see constitutional carry pass here in OK. I was simply throwing an idea out there to see what both sides thought of it. So far, it's obvious that noone wants more government intervention, and that is refreshing.
That's because the firearms are unloaded. That picture was used last year in a story about CA, OC law.
at least this "special interest group" can be found directly in the Constitution!
Yeah, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says the rest of us have to pay for them; quite the contrary.
