“The changes, laid out in House Bill 294 and signed by [Missouri] Gov. Jay Nixon on July 8, require that training involve firing at least 50 practice rounds from both a semiautomatic pistol and a revolver as well as passing a qualification test with each type of gun,” columbiamissourian.com reports. Huh? “The change in the qualification requirement was prompted by a desire to clear up confusion in the previous law.” That’s not a reason, that’s obfuscation. I can think of no good reason for this change in the rules—other than making concealed carry qualification more difficult and, thus, denying Show Me State residents their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. After all . . .
In the same way some people will never, ever be able to program a DVR, not everyone can handle the “complications” of a semi-automatic handgun. For you it’s second nature. For them, it’s a deadly Rubik’s cube.
The more a newbie struggles with gun handling—loading, inserting and removing a semi’s magazine; releasing, racking and locking the slide; trying to figure out why a limp-wristed gun won’t fire, etc.—the more likely it is they’ll experience a negligent discharge. That’s not good for them or you. Or anyone else for that matter.
Sure, a good instructor can [carefully] get a gun-challenged newbie up-to-speed on a semi— to the point where they can qualify for MO’s CCW permit. What then? Gun handling, like marksmanship, is a frangible skill.
The plain truth: many if not most CCW license holders never practice. As it not once. Ever. When push comes to shove, when a semi-wielding neophyte is in a gunfight, something’s bound to go wrong. Safety on. Limp wristing. Slide unracked (a lot of people keep the chamber empty). Etc.
Well, OK, more bound to experience The Mother of All Epic Fails shooting a semi than if they were firing a revolver.
D’uh. A revolver is relatively simple. Open the chamber, insert bullets (pointy end facing forwards), close chamber, aim gun, pull trigger as and when [strictly] needed.
Yes, I know: firearms safety rules. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that you shouldn’t point a gun at a good guy. Besides, revolvers are perfect for most people in the real world. Wheelguns don’t ask much of their users and they are fully capable of answering a great many self-defense questions.
More generally, no one should have to take any firearms training for a concealed carry license.
If you consider the average gun handling and marksmanship skill level of the average American gun owner, and consider it in the light of the statistically insignificant number of accidental firearms deaths experienced by these owners (you can round it to zero), what’s the point?
Where’s the evidence that mandatory gun safety courses increase gun safety? Show me one scientific study that proves the advantage of these courses. Common sense? Yeah, well, common sense says Americans can defend themselves with a revolver without any significant training.
And if they can’t so what? We have the right to keep and bear arms. Did anyone seriously think that right doesn’t come with collateral damage? Anyone who wants to curtail gun rights to limit the inevitable downside is on a hiding to nowhere. Except maybe a police state.
State-mandated safety courses and qualifications—especially Missouri’s new revolver and semi stricture but not excluding Chicago’s BS provisos—are an infringement on the Second Amendment. Why did society strike down mandatory, state-sanctioned tests to exercise the right to vote but seems comfortable with mandatory, state-sanctioned tests for concealed carry?