should CCW classes spend more time on Handling the weapons?

Discern I stand corrected on the current requirements of the basic pistol course. I looked up my certificate and I took the NRA FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation class which also states it has a range component but at the time I took the course which was 10+ years ago many of the course offered locally did not require any range time and qualified you to obtain a permit. I specifically sought out one that had range time.

I am however not incorrect on the fact that VA does not require you to have any range time in order to get a CHP in VA.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm#ApplicationforaConcealedHandgunPermit

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;

I personally have never shot a pistol with live rounds online or via video... have you? My main point still stands that VA does not require any hands on training with a pistol in order to obtain a CHP.
 
My personal take on this is that CCW training should focus on applicable laws and regulations, and some discussion of what does and what does not constitute reasonable grounds for use of deadly force in self-defense.

A thorough review of such topics takes up a full class, in my opinion. Adding basic weapons handling to the mix, while an admirable idea, could easily lead to overload.

Also, logical fallacy or no, a training requirement could easily be manipulated to make it difficult for the average person to obtain a permit, and I am not keen on opening windows of opportunity for the other side.

That said, I also think it foolish of anybody who plans to carry if they do not first get themselves up to speed on safe, basic weapons handling. After obtaining the permit, I think continued training is a good idea, too.

Frankly, if we want to add training requirements - and if I were boss, which I'm not - we could add mandatory training in unarmed self-defense, plus less-lethal self-defense, as prerequisites to training for any use of deadly force. I'd argue that such a plan would make sense, as it would weed out those who aren't serious about learning, and it would ensure that people who were carrying firearms would be aware of, and at least to some extent able to employ, methods short of using a firearm for those situations where a lesser degree of force might be warranted.

But if I actually tried to mandate such training, I suspect a lot of those who have posted here in favor of the training requirement would argue quite vehemently and bitterly about it.

So I have to ask, is the right to self-defense, and the right to bear arms, a right or a privilege? If it's a right, then the training requirement argument fails. If it's a privilege, then who gets to put the limits on what training requirement is reasonable and what is an infringement?

Edit: In thinking about this, my issue would be with a government training mandate. I have no problem at all if individual instructors want proof of a shooter's proficiency before accepting them as a CCW student. I might require the same...
 
Last edited:
WVsig,

The following is from the NRA.

The National Rifle Association of America currently has no online firearm training
courses. All of our firearm training courses (Home Firearm Safety excluded) have a
shooting component on a range. Some NRA certified instructors have created online
firearm training programs, and have issued certificates to individuals that take their
courses, using the title NRA Certified Instructor. Under no circumstances may NRA’s
name or your NRA credentials be associated with any online firearms training
course. If NRA’s name or your NRA credentials are associated with a course, you
must, among other things, actually work with the students, face-to-face, to allow you to
evaluate whether they perform the safe operation of a firearm, and shoot with a
sufficient level of skill. This policy applies to any course which might result in issuing
any certificate that bears the title of NRA Certified Instructor, or if the course is
associated in any way whatsoever with a certification issued by the NRA.
 
Bingo.
Our Texas CHL class is a 10-hour deal. Most of that time is spent focusing on Texas law with regard to carry and self-defense law...as it should be.

We also have a 50-round range qualification requirement about which I am ambivalent. Nothing wrong with being competent with your weapon of choice, and I strongly believe in training. I shoot weekly, but that is my choice.

Once again, I run up against that whole "shall not be infringed" thing. Your mileage may vary.
 
Read the VA statue.... Online and video based training qualifies and it does not have to be done by a NRA instructor. A state certified instructor or NRA instructor is needed but it does not need to be a course endorsed by the NRA. I know for a fact people today are obtaining permits in VA with training which did not require them to fire a handgun.

You have not posted anything to disputed the VA statute.
 
Last edited:
Why a person, with the power of life and death in their hands will not take the responsibility to educate themselves with the tools at hand so they don't endanger themselves, loved ones or strangers is beyond any comprehension. :eek::eek::eek:

My thoughts are laws should be enacted that make the penalty so severe should a person due to negligence severely injured or cause the death of another. This is the only way some people will get it. I have seen all kinds of weirdoes at the range doing all kinds of stupid stuff and may God forbid that the screwed up and discharge towards my direction etc. I will consider it a serious threat and defend myself because I will not entertain this kind of stupidity.

It is a free country but doesn't freedom come with responsibilities?
 
Doublea A, have you never heard of such existing, established crimes as:

Manslaughter;
Negligent homicide;
Aggravated battery;
Assault with a deadly weapon?

These can all be applied to the situations you describe, with the appropriate charge depending on the specifics. IE, there are already laws that address your concerns. How do you think the enactment of more laws would be a good thing?

Additionally, civil suits can put some serious pain on the inept and stupid.

Be careful what you wish for...

(Edit: as I read this, I realize that last pair of lines may have looked like a slam... not intended that way. The "inept and stupid" was in reference to the people Doublea A observed acting like morons with weapons, not to any poster.)
 
Last edited:
WVSig, thanks... actually, I do train regularly in unarmed self-defense. I admit I have only minimal training in chemical sprays, cuffs, and flex-cuffs... but I practice quite a lot with both firearms (range, plus IDPA) and open-hands (aikido, jujutsu). I also hit the gym several times a week.

But while I highly recommend such practices, I would not wish to see a government mandate.

Regards,

M

PS Situational awareness and social skills are other things that can't be mandated, but that really should be developed, while we are at it...
 
WVsig,

I never said anything regarding the requirements from VA regarding a concealed carry permit. What I posted is that you were totally incorrect regarding NRA courses. I posted from the NRA policies to make it clear to you and others what you stated regarding NRA courses in totally false. Don't state the requirements if you do not know them.
 
I never said anything regarding the requirements from VA regarding a concealed carry permit. What I posted is that you were totally incorrect regarding NRA courses. I posted from the NRA policies to make it clear to you and others what you stated regarding NRA courses in totally false. Don't state the requirements if you do not know them.
Click to expand...

Which I already conceded I misspoke about but if you bothered to read what I posted the crux of my argument was that VA does not require any "training" on how to actually use a real handgun in order to obtain a permit.

Do you want me to say it again:

I stand corrected on the current requirements of the NRA basic pistol course. It has a range component to the course as does the NRA 1st step course in its current form!

I used the wrong example but have now corrected the error by offering up numerous other examples of hands off online video training that qualifies you for a permit in VA. Hopefully to the satisfaction of Discern. I can only hope he accepts my deepest apologizes and no longer feels the need to PM me his forum posts. LOL
 
IMO, what is needed is for people in general to be taught by knowledgeable shooters or instructors on how to safely shoot and handle firearms at an early but appropriate age. I know several people who attended rural/country schools where firearm safety and marksmanship were taught at school. Unfortunately, many schools today no longer have a marksmanship or rilfe team yet alone teach firearm safety. The NRA has the the Eddie Eagle Safety Program, but how many schools take advantage of this free program? Some schools that do have a marksmanship or rifle team, will not even allow a student on the school's marksmanship team to have a picture of them in their school marksmanship uniform and rifle in the school yearbook.

If we start accepting restrictions to our constitutional rights, we are in danger to lose our constitutional rights. The current American Rifleman has a good article on what happened in the UK regarding firearm ownership. IMO, what is needed is for people to be taught at an early age how to think, be responsible and a good citizen. Many people today have never been taught common sense or how to use reason, how to be responsible or to be a good citizen. If the building blocks are not there how can we expect any type of order?

Edit: Above post is good example
 
I'm sure we all have range stories.

The last time I was at the range the guy in the booth next to me was having trouble hitting a man-sized silhoutte at 10 feet. Yes - ten feet.

His shooting was so bad it was distracting me. It was like passing a car crash... I didn't want to look but I had to look. I'd hear his gun go off and then I had to see where it hit the target. He had 14" shot groups, and sometimes his gun would go off and no hole would appear in his target.

His gun jammed and he had no idea how to clear it so he had to flag down the range officer.

Ya, I think, "should this guy really have a gun?"

I also bemoan the fact that unless someone is convicted of felony - they retain the right to carry a gun even when they are stupid. I think of that jackass who carrying and was opening the door to a 7-Eleven in Atlanta, and started an argument with someone who didn't say thank you to him, and was badgering the guy - even following him out of the store berating him, and the guy shot him.

I'm not saying it was right for the shooter to shoot that guy, but the guy was a jackass and if I were King I'd take his CCW away from him. Id say "you lack common sense, I'm not even going to duscuss it with you because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall - you're a stupid jackass and you can't be trusted to carry a weapon."

But we had a king, and we decided we didn't want a king, and we made this thing - the constitution, so we have to live with it.

It gives people rights in a lot of different areas, and sometimes people use those rights to be stupid.
 
To MLeake

I have heard of the above mention laws but you and I know that sometimes people are not prosecuted because they can afford a high profile attorney or their family is in the position of influence in society. In the case that they are prosecuted they cannot bring back the innocent life that they have destroyed. So it is lose-lose situation for all the parties involved.

The motivation for my previous comment is that there are some people in society that only acts because the consequences of inaction will be of great detriment to them. Not everybody is proactive, diligent and responsible in this case, the handling of firearms safely. These kind of people endangers all of us who take these rights seriously because the rights did not come cheaply.

I agree with your comment "That said, I also think it foolish of anybody who plans to carry if they do not first get themselves up to speed on safe, basic weapons handling. After obtaining the permit, I think continued training is a good idea, too."

So I was suggesting a good judgment on behalf of firearm enthusiast but if somebody says that it is their freedom not to become knowledgeable, they are right, so do I have the reservation not to help these kind of people should the need arise. I hope our annual membership fee to the NRA is not being used to support this kind of idiocy.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I meant to say, though it came out nothing like it :(. If you can't demonstrate simple safety measures (ex: keeping your gun pointed away from everyone in the class, or looking down the barrel after you pulled the trigger and nothing happened) then you do not need your CCP. I do however agree that it should not be taught in the class.

Would people feel the same about having a harder time getting a license if they were to say you have to have say 4 hrs of firearm training, before you took the class? Have a certificate that you present.

It is one more step to do but IMO at least we wouldn't be worried about someone shooting themselves or someone else AS MUCH
 
One impression I get from reading this and other threads is that many believe the same thing that the anti-gun crowd believes, which is that guns are much too dangerous for ordinary people. By the same token, there is the common belief that the world in which we live is a very dangerous place. The anti-gun crowd believes fewer guns would be better, and the other side believes the opposite. I think some of the same exaggerations have been made by both sides to further their arguments.

And another thing, have firearms in general and handguns in particular, become more complicated in the last century? At one time, it was sufficient to include a little three page leaflet in the cardboard box the pistol came in. Today you get a 37 page booklet instead and that's just the ones that only have one language. It could at least be shorter if they didn't have those large and bold warning (in red) in two places on every page. Apparently even the manufacturer thinks their product is too dangerous.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Thats all I am being a proponent of.
 
One impression I get from reading this and other threads is that many believe the same thing that the anti-gun crowd believes, which is that guns are much too dangerous for ordinary people. By the same token, there is the common belief that the world in which we live is a very dangerous place. The anti-gun crowd believes fewer guns would be better, and the other side believes the opposite. I think some of the same exaggerations have been made by both sides to further their arguments.
Click to expand...

Thats a false impression and a leading argument. I think most people arguing for training are arguing that people should be sufficiently trained to not be a menace.

With rights come responsibilities. If you're going to avail yourself of your 2nd Amendment Rights you should be responsbile and at least know how to handle the blasted thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top