Qualifying for CCW? What the heck!?! (rant)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here in Sacramento County, Kalifornia, every year we have to qualify on a range with each gun on the CCW.
Then at the 3rd year, we have to take a class (4 hours or so) and range shoot each one. The last 3 yr one I did had strong hand, weak hand, moving (advancing and retreating)targets, hip shoot, 15 yd. AND...
7 yd. A toughie. Took 80% to qualify. Easy to ace the Glock 30 and the HiPower but the Chief spl. dropped a few points.
Course several years of competitive pistol kinda made me a ringer. But I still think it was too rigorous for average person. Especially when the snubby had to shoot the same course and I would not use it at those distances and "from the hip" is almost too odd to make a decision on. But it is what we had to do.
 
As another anecdote about CHL classes: When I was at the qualifier for my CHL here in Texas, I was in the first group of shooters. There were five of us, instructed to do something like load five rounds, then on signal raise the gun from low ready and fire two shots within three seconds at a rather large silhouette three yards away. The instructor said "Go" and then three seconds later said "Stop," at which time only two of the five guns on the line had gone off. One was on safety, one was a 1911 with the hammer down (!), and one was a woman that wasn't strong enough to pull the DA trigger on her husband's S&W .45 auto (ended up fetching her my Glock 17 out of the car, which she did much better with, but had already lost too many points to pass). Not very encouraging.
 
Tackleberry

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(No flame was intended)
[/quote]

No offense taken. I shoot IDPA regularly, while I enjoy it, I spend the entire day in condition orange. :)

John Hollister
 
I understand the concern about idiots or completely untrained individuals with firearms, but some people are blowing this out of proportion. The accumulated data shows that in general the average Joe off the street is safer with a firearm and has a higher hit rate in defensive shootings than the police.

Part of this may be that the police are putting themselves in dangerous situations where the average gun owner would flee. Whatever the reason, CCW holders with a little or a lot of training(millions of them out there already)are not accidentally gunning down innocents or police.
 
Good point, Valdez.

Is there any statistical evidence that CCW holders in states with mandated training are any safer than CCW holders in states without mandated training?
 
Thanks TBeck for an excellent response.
And in response to why are these people receiving their permits?
MONEY, pure and simple!!!
The State is making a fortune, and does not care who gets the permit!!!!!!
 
I don't mind the idea of testing people. In fact, it somewhat comforts me. Hopefully that way I won't turn on the TV or radio and have to listen about some clueless wonder who, despite his or her best intentions, just made several key points in favor of gun control.

Erik
 
Matt - John Lott has examined the issue
and found that there was no difference
between training and no training states
on CHL/CCW performance or risk.

Given that I recall that my CHL trainer wore
a vest and said IF YOU POINT A GUN AT ME
I WILL SHOOT YOU.

He was gentle with the guy who loaded the
380 rounds backwards in his 1903ish Colt.
 
I have no data to support this contention, but I would really like to see the backgrounds of the people who have been involved in these shootings. The types of people who carry now, legally or illegally, for self defense tend to be the type of folks who will train on their own to attain a minimum level of proficency. Many have obtained formal training in the military or taught by responsible adults, such as fathers and uncles. With the family dynamics changing with more fatherless households and the disintegration of the family unit, we are starting to see a whole new dynamic at work here. No longer do young men go into the service as part of the draft. What they learn is what they get from movies and tv. We have all read about the gangsta shoots at the local ranges on this web and marveled about the continuity of the gene pool. It is not that these folks are stupid, they just do not know any better. My wife, who is a teacher, tells me 80% of what we learn, we get through watching others do. If our instructors are not out there actively demonstrating, walking the walk and talking the talk, then we are wasting our time. Folks, these shall issue states are potentially giving us all the rope we need to hang ourselves. The right to do anything has never implied the abilty to do anything. They are collecting the negative statistical data and as less qualified and potentially dangerous persons are passed as being "qualified" by "qualified instructors" (read that state qualified), and these "qualified" people start to have "accidents" and create "bad shoots", then the liberals will have all the ammo they need to shut us down. Many liberals, who are going along with the right to issue statutes, are openly hoping they fail, so they can point to the caranage and claim the moral high ground and say, "See, we went along and tried it your way and look what happened. Now, we will try it the other way." If that happens, then you better believe we are one step away from the abyss none of who are sane want to contemplate.
 
If the disintegrating family unit is the root of the problem, how about mandatory training and testing for parents, rather than for CCW holders?

Oh, you say the voters won't go for that? Then mandatory training and testing for them, too!

More laws! More bureaucracy! Programs and tax credits all around! I'm sure that with just a little more red tape and some guidance from the "right" people, we can fix anything.

OK, rant over. :D I just had to get that off my chest.

The ridiculous arguments against reform of the CCW laws here in Ohio have made me a little cynical. It seems that no matter how clear the examples of success are from other states, the debate here will center around imaginary problems and the need for "control". I expect we'll wind up with a grotesquely complicated system requiring training, testing, background checks, retina scans, notarized permission slips from our sixth grade teachers, serial numbers, and probably bar codes on our foreheads if they can sneak it through committee. ;) Even then, we'll have a long list of places and times we can't carry: schools, government buildings, churches, grocery stores, parking lots, wetlands, streets less than 2000' long, homes built after 1993, counties whose names end in vowels, et cetera.

Whoops, I guess that rant wasn't over. ;f
 
Two months ago I took the ccw course in Mass.
We had 15 hours of classroom training, 2 hours of dry firing, and 2 hours of shooting at the range. Some individuals in the class should not have been given their ccw after the unsafe handling I witnessed but in Mass if you put in the time you pass the class. This still doesn't mean you get the permit. It is up to the chief of police in your town to grant you the ccw.
By the way the class cost 175.00. The permit and pictures cost 50 dollars.
 
FastForty and Snakeman,

Sounds like you're talking about our region. Don't know about "outlaying" counties (we know we're the center of the world ;) ), but Alameda requires a course of fire at the Sheriff's range at distances up to 25 yds while Contra Costa apparently only issues if you contribute to the Sheriff's election fund or favorite charity.
 
All of these posts are examples of why I don't go to indoor public ranges. Too many people handling their guns improperly. On the other hand, I've decided to get full body armor for my next stint as range officer for hunter sight-ins. Can't imagine being in the woods with some of these guys.

But let's put it in perspective. Go for a drive on the expressway and look at all the idiotic moves licensed drivers make. Better yet, stand outside a biker bar and watch the guys leaving make every mistake in the book.

Live defensively?

Dick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top