should CCW classes spend more time on Handling the weapons?

[aarondhgraham]

Ditto to Kraigwy,,,

A long standing tactic of backdoor gun control,,,
Is to simply make the process of getting a gun/license/ammo too expensive.

I'm agin' it!

Aarond

 

[kraigwy]

He didn't even know how to operate a slide release ...........I took the gun from him and asked him how the hell he got a permit to carry................. I handed him his money back and told him ill never sell him anything .............. So I told him to go get some real training

Wouldn't have been better for both of you, to take him to the range and work with him a while on the pistol. You would have made sale, and he would have learned how to handle and fire the pistol you just sold him.

 

[WVsig]

I have no problems with no training but if you injure someone I want to see you prosectuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not enough people IMHO take into the "real" risks involved when you choose to carry a handgun.

If you are not properly trained with the gun you are carrying you are putting you and those around you at risk. IMHO people who do this are guilty of negligence.

I also personally believe that too many within the pro gun community do not speak out against this negligence because they are afraid of being accused of being anti- or that it will give the antis fuel to add to the fire. Instead of self policing we make excuses.

 

[WVsig]

It's better if folks get more training but....this is not an ideal world.

You share the road every day with drunks, meth-heads, innattentive smartphone operators and kids who learned to drive by playing Grand Theft Auto on their Xbox.

They have driver's licenses. Doesn't mean they know how to drive.
(And the ones who no longer have licenses - still drive.)

Near as I can tell, the risk that I'll be killed by one of these licensed drivers is far, far greater than any danger I face from sub-optimum gun handling.

Right but when one of these "drivers" kills someone you do not see other meth-heads & cell phone users making excuses for the negligent killer like you do when it happens with a gun.

 

[pgdion]

I don't think so. I think you should already be proficient with the weapon before handling the class. The CCW class is more about the laws and making sure you can at least handle a weapon with minimum proficiency. There are other classes for learning how to handle the weapon itself (which should be taken first). That's my 2 cents on it.

 

[Hunter Rose]

Have to say, I'm against mandatory training.

As has been said: one of the favorite backdoors for gun control is to make it too onerous to actually get a permit (or, in some cases, a firearm). This does NOTHING to advance the cause of gun rights.

 

[BlueTrain]

I agree. It's only a short step to something that makes it impossible to get a permit. The same thing has happened with hunting licenses and in some countries, it's even worse (that is, more difficult). This sort of trend goes back probably 75 or 80 years. I think it is part of a larger trend to "professionalize" just about everything. That trend has nothing to do with government, it's merely that those who were the first to do something want to monopolize the game, calling themselves the annointed experts. You want to learn to hang-glide? You have to be trained by the certified hang gliding instructor.

There is also a similiar thing present especially in large cities, part of which is perhaps justifiable and part of which is a control thing. You want to have that tree in your backyard cut down? Well, you can't do it youself. You have to get a licensed, bonded and insured tree expert to do the job, after you have the proper permit. Rich people of course cut the tree down first.

In the world of firearms there is a common claim that because a gun is such a dangerous thing, you need very expert instruction. Maybe they're too dangerous for the likes of us.

 

[brickeyee]

Virginia has very little training required.

The state hunter safety class is allowed.

We have not had a whole lot of trouble with mishandling, unintended discharges (though some idiot using 'Mexican carry' recently killed himself).

There have not even been very many permit revocations for cause (but it is not zero).

Virginia had a bad history before shall issue with judges refusing permits based on training, so the training requirements are placed in the law to stop them from refusing under 'shall issue.'

The more liberal counties often had NO permits issued to anyone, while the more conservative (and often rural counties) issued.

So far the 'blood in the streets' predictions have been wrong, and at least a few newspapers have admitted that.

Getting some good training (I went to Gunsite even though I had a lot of Bullseye experience) is good, but using training as a way to restrict access to concealed carry is not needed.

It is just one more way to drive up the cost and limit permits.

 

[aarondhgraham]

It's a missed opportunity for the trainer,,,

A local NRA certified trainer offers a 1-hour individualized training session at a discounted price to any person who takes his CWL course and then obtains their CWL.

This is not only responsible (I need a better word here) mentoring,,,
But a great promotional device for his business.

Aarond

 

[TailGator]

How do we feel about requiring a 40 hour course for someone who is facing an immediate threat? They could be dead in the time it takes to get 40 hours of classroom training. Forty hours is a work week. Should effective self defense only be available to those who can afford to take a week off for training? Or should it take several weekends? What about the expense of a course that long?

I agree that training is very valuable, but I don't want to make effective self defense into a privilege of the elite. That is my reason for opposing extensive mandatory training.

The course I took, although a single day, was better than that described by the OP, however. It is possible to cover at least the basics of safe firearm handling in a one-day course. It is up to the student to respond to what s/he is taught, too.

 

[zincwarrior]

I have thought the same thing as long as we have had concealed handgun licenses in Ohio.

Everytime I have voiced that opinion I have been met with hostility from my fellow gun owners.

I agree. In Texas the standard is somewhat more intensive with firing at 3 distances from a few feet to 25 yards. But yes I remember granny getting out there with a 44 mag waiving it about and some other similar events at the range-finding out they were coming in the for CHL class.

 

[barstoolguru]

Stronger testing and less forced training

I went and took my class there was a woman in there and out of 50 shots she barely keeps them on the target and she passed. Wow did I feel good knowing she has a right to carry a gun.(sarcasm)

“We Americans have a right to carry a gun no matter who it hurts or kills because it doesn’t affect us in most cases.” No background checks and open carry breeds trouble… the past has taught us this.

And I love this one: “it should be free, why should I have to pay for the right to carry.” I guess the tax payer should shoulder the burden….”Ooo wait that’s me”… “Well it’s cheaper for me if everyone pays for my rights because it is in the constitution.” Great idea and you can help everyone by help paying for their car registration and other programs that someone else uses but you don’t.

Am I for more forced training, NO that is up to the individual to proficient but stronger testing at the time of testing would be a good thing

 

[Ronbert]

Right but when one of these "drivers" kills someone you do not see other meth-heads & cell phone users making excuses for the negligent killer like you do when it happens with a gun.

Because it's so "normal" it's not even reported much. We accept that impaired, distracted, foolish and untrained people are driving and killing other people in much, much larger numbers than gun accidents.

The real risk is on the roads. How many people do you know who've died or been injured from unsafe CCW permit holder gun handling? How many have been in car crashes?

Why work on a low-level problem when your life is in danger every day from the other? Sure, a perfect world would have excellent gun handling by well trained folks whose rights were never infringed by making training mandatory but unavailable but...... in the real world you have to make tradeoffs.

I'm not willing to make training mandatory and place that in the hands of people who will just make it the tool for denial of gun rights (See Chicago or DC for examples)

 

[Catchabullet]

when places sell guns, they should offer introductory classes... would eliminate a lot of error. my range offers introductory classes for 50$. but the CCW is not meant for basic training... just to teach LAWS and to prove you can properly handle a firearm. then again, any good instructor will always, always go over safety (ours do).

 

[zincwarrior]

I don't think so. I think you should already be proficient with the weapon before handling the class. The CCW class is more about the laws and making sure you can at least handle a weapon with minimum proficiency. There are other classes for learning how to handle the weapon itself (which should be taken first). That's my 2 cents on it.

Thats fine. Make basic pistol knowledge and proficiency an increased requirement for obtaining the license. Training not required but proficiency is.
Add to the test:
1. basic safety rules (written and at range)
2. basic weapon proficiency (loading/unloading, handling and operation).

 

[WVsig]

Virginia has very little training required.

The state hunter safety class is allowed.

Wrong on the facts. VA requires a class. ZERO training is required. You can do an oline or video course and I personally do not consider that training.

 

[kraigwy]

Am I for more forced training, NO that is up to the individual to proficient but stronger testing at the time of testing would be a good thing

OK, what type of test, who conducts it, what's the standards? How much to take the test?

I can design a test a 99 year old grandma on life support can pass, or I can design a test that Jeff Cooper couldn't pass. Depends on what you are tying to accomplish. If I want anyone to carry, I'll design a test toward that goal, or if I want to get rid of guns, I can design a test for that.

Again, who's gonna design the test, and what is their motive?

As to testing it self: What does it tell you, that a guy can shoot a gun always, or that he can shoot a gun at the time of the test?

Shooting isn't like riding a bicycle. You can't take off the training wheels, show your parents you can ride a two wheeler and then you're set for life.

Shooting is a diminishing art. You have to keep up with it or its gone. I shoot a min of 200 rounds a week, and sometimes I don't think that is enough.

Mandatory training and/or testing accomplishes nothing. There is no stats showing where places with mandatory training/testing has made any one safer.

Wyoming is one of the safest places in the country. You don't even need a permit to carry, let alone training.

 

[WVsig]

Because it's so "normal" it's not even reported much. We accept that impaired, distracted, foolish and untrained people are driving and killing other people in much, much larger numbers than gun accidents.

The real risk is on the roads. How many people do you know who've died or been injured from unsafe CCW permit holder gun handling? How many have been in car crashes?

Why work on a low-level problem when your life is in danger every day from the other? Sure, a perfect world would have excellent gun handling by well trained folks whose rights were never infringed by making training mandatory but unavailable but...... in the real world you have to make tradeoffs.

I'm not willing to make training mandatory and place that in the hands of people who will just make it the tool for denial of gun rights (See Chicago or DC for examples)

That is because there are more people driving cars than carrying guns. You cannot look at it interms of raw numbers. As Twain use to say "There are lies Damn lies and then statistics.

 

[barstoolguru]

quote:Wyoming is one of the safest places in the country. You don't even need a permit to carry, let alone training.

Here is a death rate chart and Wyoming in amongst the highest at 15.5 per 100,000
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

Now on to the other question, if grandma wants to carry she need to pass a general firearms test and I am sure who ever put together a hunting classes can come up with a test for carrying a hand gun. it’s funny we put 8 hours into training someone to carry a gun in the woods but 30 minutes testing them on proficiency of a handgun and 7 ½ hours of law.

How would the people like if cops only had 30 minutes of gun training to get on the police force? I did not say to make the test so difficult that it leaves out the vast migratory but I am sure that someone like that NRA can come up with a reasonable test.

I am glad you get to shoot 200 rounds a week and there are some that shoot once a year but by law both of you are equal. No one want to make the system top heavy but some of us would like to know that the bimbo that barely keep her shots on a standard target is not going to be pointing the gun in my direction when she gets into a pinch. Stats tell us that 7% of all bullets (police included) hit their intended targets and this bimbo that got her licenses would be in the less than 1% category

 

[kraigwy]

Barstool, I think you are missing the major contention in my post.

That being that Mandantory training/testing doesn't work, it accomplishes NOTHING.

I was a range officer in most of my 20 years with the Anchorage Police Dept. We had mandantory training and testing, on the whole, COPS CANT SHOOT. Not just APD, but cops in general. Ask any LE range officer.

The same with the military: Most my time in the National Guard was in charge of training. I ran the AK NG Marksmanship Training, where I was overall incharge of training the AN NG to shoot. Same thing, on the average the military can't shoot. And don't say its the NG. On the whole NG shooters are better then the Regular Military simply because the NG makes it easier for individuals to train on their own.

When you institute mandantory training/testing, it has to mean the government sets the standards. We all know what that's like. Governments are more about control then training and that's what you'll end up with, more control on our right to carry.

If one screws up, do to neglect or what ever, fine, punish them. But you don't punish the masses because some one screws up.

I think the majority of us (gun owners) want less government control then more.

by law both of you are equal

No sir, not by law, but by God we are equal. The law (constitution) only protects our God given rights. When government gets involved, those God given rights are restricted.