should CCW classes spend more time on Handling the weapons?

when one screws up...

The masses take a beating. I respect your time and training, I for one know it is hard to train people and break habits. One thing is that time has shown us that you can't trust people to do the right thing and that leaves a hole for the government to step in.

Gun owner can be a reckless bunch and it can be difficult to pinpoint the owner of a bullet. The vast majority of CC people is good people and intends to do no harm but even the best intentions can stray and someone gets hurt. Needless to say that training reduces the chances of a bad shooting.

So why not incorporate a small training/ refresher course and tag it to a permit. 4 hours of someone’s day is well worth a life that it might save. Some people don't need it and see it as a burden but I say if you want to cc then shut up and take the training /refresher course.

I for one have seen many people stand in front of me and say I know all about guns and when you hand them one they scare the heck out of you so why should I/we take someone’s word that they know how to handle a gun? it might be constitutional right to own a gun but it is also a constitutional right for peace and the pursuit of happiness and when someone is reckless that infringes on my rights too. Yea, I know sue but you can’t get blood out of a rock!

Edit: you talk about not wanting the government to intervene but isn’t the constitution a government intervention that gives us the right to bear arms? What you really meant to say is you want selective government intervention… and I believe we have that already we just need to make it work like it suppose to
 
Last edited:
Again Sir,

I'm not saying there is any thing wrong with training. I'm saying government mandatory training isn't the answer. You say give up 4 hours of your time to get a permit isn't that much to ask. But 4 hours every 5 years (most CC permits I know of are good for 5 years) accomplishes nothing.

You asked that the citizen should adhere to the same standards ad LE officers, as to mandatory training. But, LE officers are paid to train on company time, they are given the ammo.

Are you willing to use tax dollars (in training and ammo) so private citizens can excesses their right and then like cops, they still can't shoot?
 
when places sell guns, they should offer introductory classes
Click to expand...

Many - perhaps most - do offer them. And plenty of people decline to take them. The question is, should they and can they make them mandatory. Most people on gun forums are going to say no, but it would be interesting to know how many first-time buyers would say yes to the theory but no in practice. That seems to me to be the real problem.
 
I have in my day seen too many people who took a CHL class thinking that it was training, that had little or no experience with firing handguns. Strangely I can not think of any of them that did not pass the shooting portion of the test.

I agree that a basic handgun safty class should be taken before a person takes the CHL class.
 
Wrong on the facts. VA requires a class. ZERO training is required.
Click to expand...

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

G. The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence, nor shall any proof of demonstrated competence expire:

1. Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;

2. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;

3. Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;

4. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;

5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;

6. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;

7. Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;

8. Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or

9. Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on how you want to define "training."

Or maybe you where born with the ability to "demonstrated competence."
 
VA does not require any live firing to complete the requirements for a CHP. Both online and in class safety courses which do not require you to even hold a gun satisfy the "training" requirement to obtain a VA permit.

Gander Mountain used to offer the course and those who took it there never saw a range and where eligible for their VA permit. I do not consider listening to an instructor, logging into the internet and reading a book training when it comes to a handgun.
 
Last edited:
>you talk about not wanting the government to intervene but isn’t the constitution a government intervention that gives us the right to bear arms?<

BUZZZZZ!!!!!! Wrong answer.

The Constitution is a set of rules for government to follow. The Bill of Rights doesn't GIVE us anything: it sets out a list of rights granted all humans by their Creator, and specifies that the government isn't allowed to touch them.

Now... making a training requirement opens the door for antigun politicians to raise the bar so high that nobody can meet it. Defacto ban on CCW.
 
slippery.png


Which is a logical fallacy.....
 
Missed the sarcasm.

But I've heard antis discuss making the training requirement too onerous for most people to attain. So feel free to claim I'm using a logical fallacy
 
CCW class should not be training. It SHOULD however require you to demonstrate safe and effective use of a firearm. Any of the stuff like has been mentioned in this thread - can't operate the safety, can't load the weapon, negligent muzzle control, can't hit the target at 5 yards, etc - should rate an instant failure.
 
But I've heard antis discuss making the training requirement too onerous for most people to attain. So feel free to claim I'm using a logical fallacy
Click to expand...

Your conclusion does not follow directly from the premises. You are still using a logically fallacy because you do not have strong enough causal link. Sorry but its logic 101. There is no causal inevitability. You have outlined a possible scenario but have proven nothing.

If we are going to argue a position we should do so with enough weight and accuracy to actually convince someone who does not share the same conclusions before the discussion starts.
 
Last edited:
Now... making a training requirement opens the door for antigun politicians to raise the bar so high that nobody can meet it. Defacto ban on CCW.
Click to expand...
You do realize I am stating that you are attempting to prove your point using a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

Each step must be examined and one needs to recognize the great difference between "will cause and either "may cause," or "may encourage,". . . .

How far off base would I be to predict that if there were a pro-gun bill, someone would attempt to insert a rider that we would consider anti?

Anti-gun politicians are on record as advocating incremental encroachments, are they not?
 
To the OP, I am adamantly against a mandatory 40 training requirement. It would prevent many law abiding and hardworking citizens the ability to obtain a concealed carry permit.

That said, I think MO's mandatory 8 hour training program which requires qualification with both a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol is reasonable.

I also think that not all instructors of the classes provide the same quality of education. Our instructor (also a certified NRA instructor) required us to put 20 rounds from each weapon into an 11 X 17 target at 7yds. During the firing section, he also required us to demonstrate a reload of each type of weapon and even required a "short load" of the revolver to demonstrate that we could properly index the short load. The instructor also taught and strictly enforced the NRA safe gun handling rules on the range.

If you really want to do something to improve the CC class, pass more stringent requirements to license the instructors and audit the classes more frequently to ensure that the instructors are following the curriculum.
 
My understanding is that not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

Each step must be examined and one needs to recognize the great difference between "will cause and either "may cause," or "may encourage,". . . .
Click to expand...

You need to have a much stronger causal relationship than has been presented here to overcome the obvious fallacy. The conclusion does not derive directly from the premises but instead is only circumstantially supported. At best it is a weak argument instead of a complete fallacy.

How far off base would I be to predict that if there were a pro-gun bill, someone would attempt to insert a rider that we would consider anti?

Anti-gun politicians are on record as advocating incremental encroachments, are they not?
Today 08:00 PM
Click to expand...

I like it! Using a red herring to prove the slippery slope... Please we can do better than this can't we. If I am pro-gun and I can see the errors in your logic what will anyone who is on the fence see? We are not talking about pro gun bills or slipping in riders. Leading us away from the question at hand does not strengthen the slippery slope unless you already believe the conclusion to be true. That would be circular reasoning and you know what they say about circular reasoning.

circular-reasoning1.jpg


Some anti-gun advocates are looking to use incremental approaches but all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles. Again there is not a strong enough causal relationship to validate the claim. Your argument lacks structure and logical substance.

Honestly we can do better than this.
 
Last edited:
Are you still surprised? I gather that you are against "constitutional carry.""
Click to expand...

Never said I was surprised. I've said that there are a lot of people that don't know how to safely carry and/or handle a handgun.

Constitutional carry? It has the word Constitution in it so it must be good right?

Well, I'm against sharing a area with a person who doesn't know how to safely carry and/or handle their firearm.
 
Why not use a little personal responsibility and punish those who screw up, rather than put in training that can be used as a tool to prevent gun ownership/carry (see current situation in Chicago, IIRC correctly, where training is required but you can't get it unless you can drive out of the jurisdiction as they don't allow it to be offered) or is a hurdle to those less well off financially.

Even 40 hours of training...seriously, do you think that makes up for a lifetime of naivity to guns? My wife has far, far more than 40 hours of training but even she is honest enough with herself to know that she should not be carrying as she could not trust herself to react correctly and safely in a high-pressure situation.
 
Let me start with: what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The fact is that we must currently allow "reasonable restrictions"... which is such a nebulous term that it may be twisted in any direction.

That should be offensive to anyone who understands the Constitution.
On the other hand, it is where we find ourselves, and we can only progress from here.

As far as state CHL/CCW laws go, we must comply with them as written. We should not seek to make them more restrictive.

When I received my A&P license almost 30 years ago, I was told that it was a "license to learn". A driver's license is the same thing...a starting point, and a responsibility.

A CHL/CCW is the same. It is up to the license holder to increase and enhance his/her knowledge and skill.

Do not put that power in the states' hands.
 
WVsig Statement on NRA Basic Pistol Course NOT TRUE

NOT TRUE Quote of WVsig - "The NRA basic safety course requires no live firing to complete. You do not have to even hold a gun to get your certificate."

WVsig, how do you know the requirements for the NRA Basic Pistol Course? Was this course an actual NRA Basic Pistol Course or a non-NRA course taught by a NRA Instructor? If you know of any NRA Instructor issuing a NRA Basic Pistol Course certificate without the students actually firing a handgun in the manner set by the NRA, contact the NRA HQ.

WVsig, your above statement regarding the NRA Basic Pistol Course not requiring students to fire a handgun is absolutely false. Students of the NRA Basic Pistol Course must shoot either a rimfire or centerfire handgun (NO Airsoft, BB guns, pellet guns or air guns) and demonstrate they are safe in loading, firing, unloading and handling a handgun. The NRA is very specific on what needs to be covered in NRA courses in the classroom, on the range and how the shooting of the handgun is to take place for the NRA Basic Pistol Course. There is no required minimum number of shots to be fired, but the NRA guidelines for a NRA course must be followed. This requires several shots to be fired. Some NRA Instructors may have their students fire hundreds of rounds during the NRA Basic Pistol Course. All guidelines set by the NRA for a particular course regarding instruction and student proficiency must be met for a NRA certificate to be issued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top