should CCW classes spend more time on Handling the weapons?

[dyl]

One big difference

Between the civilians, LEO and armed forces is:

All that training is part of their JOB for the police and soldiers. They get paid for the time it takes, the weapon is issued, and the ammo provided for.

When can a working man / woman / parent / single mom commit 40 hours if they already have previous obligations? It probably won't be during the work week if money is an issue. How many weekends would that take? For EVERYONE?

The equivalent for a civilian : the government, community, or company you work for would allow the time off and pay for the class. Or firearms training would be incorporated into the regular education system and be just as prevalent as driving classes (albeit later in life)

 

[Deja vu]

I live in Idaho and you dont even have to take a class. You just pass a back ground test and pay the money and there you go. There are classes you can take but they are completely optional.

I don't know if this is true but the reason I was told why this is the case is because in Idaho you have to have a CCW permit to carry a knife with a blade longer than 4 inches. The lawyers got involved because some one that wanted to carry a knife did not see a need to prove he can shoot a gun. Again I am not claiming this is true just that this seems to be the word on the subject at my local range.

 

[brickeyee]

Its never ending, its a case of you grow or you become stagnant.

Disagree.

You do not have to "grow" to maintain skills.

Practice will preserve them nicely if done correctly.

I already spent enough time and money getting skillful enough to now rely on continuing practice to preserve my skill.

 

[kazanski612]

I'm all for training.......................I'm against mandatory training.

+1. With freedom comes responsibility. I'm in favor of both, together.

I have a small firearms training company and I'm actually against the state requirement to even take a class for a permit. Everyone should take a class - many, in fact - but no one should have to.

There are no government-mandated classes to make me a good father, but that doesn't mean I don't try and learn as much as I can, every day.

A 200 hour firearms class still will not guarantee all people will be safe, good citizens. But we each need to be responsible enough to know where we're at with our own training.

 

[oneounceload]

You have folks driving with less driver-ed training than most CCW people have about guns - I'd be more worried in that regard. Some states do require live fire, some don't - CCW "training" isn't about your gun, it is about the law and your responsibility under the law

 

[stickhauler]

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

I have no idea what kind of course you went through, mine, we fired 50 rounds in differing distances, and magazine loads. Even had a couple where we had to change magazines during the exercise. With our own handguns, and they had to be a minimum of 9mm.

Out of around 30 people in my class, there were a total of 4 brand new shooters, and we had 3 instructors on the range to supervise the firing, with groups of 5 shooting at a time.

And of the 50 rounds fired per session, you had to have 40 within a regular paper plate sized area to qualify. Do I believe that minimal training equipped every student to be qualified as a concealed carry holder? Maybe not, but at the range I belong to, I have seen every student from my class there on a regular basis practicing, and have seen nearly all of them in advanced classes for concealed carry and tactics I've taken.

I'd say you find other concealed carry holders look at you with perhaps a little anger because (at least in my experience) the best part of CCW holders (again, that I know personally) have been involved in shooting sports for years, and most have served in the military. In job classifications that involve shooting on a regular basis.

I'll not claim to be a sniper, but I put a load of lead downrange during my time in the military, as well as survived a year in Uncle Sam's Summer Camp in SE Asia, as an infantryman. And though the eyes have went away a bit over the years, I can still shoot a pretty decent hole out of near the center of a bullseye target.

And, many concealed carry holders I know feel that the 2nd amendment should be the only "permit" required of a law abiding person to own, carry, and use a firearm as a form of self defense. We're all grown-ups, we all (well certainly should by now anyway) know that using a firearm for self defense is the LAST resort in a dicey situation, not the first thought that should come to your mind.

As such, I see required training as a way for the government to keep people from being "permitted" to have their 2nd amendment rights. Take the case of people who live in cities where they require a gun owner to have training to even be allowed to get a permit to own a gun, but the city refuses to allow training ranges to be situated in the city. Many people who live in urban areas depend on mass transit, which does not run outside of the city to places where they could take training. Many urban dwellers could barely afford to buy a firearm for home defense, and they sure don't have the extra cash to pay for training.

 

[wayneinFL]

I'd say you find other concealed carry holders look at you with perhaps a little anger because (at least in my experience) the best part of CCW holders (again, that I know personally) have been involved in shooting sports for years, and most have served in the military. In job classifications that involve shooting on a regular basis.

I'll not claim to be a sniper, but I put a load of lead downrange during my time in the military, as well as survived a year in Uncle Sam's Summer Camp in SE Asia, as an infantryman. And though the eyes have went away a bit over the years, I can still shoot a pretty decent hole out of near the center of a bullseye target.

This is why Florida takes a DD214 in lieu of the training requirement.

I'm all for training.......................I'm against mandatory training.

That pretty much says it all.

I don't think the test should be extremely difficult. We're not training Navy SEALS here. In my opinion, they should require a minimum score at each distance, instead of basing the score on total points. Good Heavens, somebody who can't hit a foot-wide target at 15 yards with 1 out of 10 shots shouldn't be carrying.

How often is an armed robber going to stand across the street from the ATM, yelling "Give me your money!" ? Most lethal force incidents happen at arm's length; I'd bet 90% are within 10 feet at the most. Why should we require someone to shoot at 15 yards to CCW? It's not like we're requiring them to intervene in a bank robbery.