Went to my CCW Class this past weekend.
- Thread starter berreez
- Start date
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Cascade1911
New member
Stupid
You want to talk stupid? People having no clue taking classes to handle their handgun safely... good idea to me. In New York, home of lets figure out how to restrict firearm ownership. Me, a twenty plus year holder of a NY concealed carry permit. I want to get my CT non resident carry permit. I gotta take a pistol safety course. Now the stupid part....In NY a resident can't take this course if 21 or older......No, get your permit, get a gun and then come to us and we'll teach you to handle it safely.
I'm not into lots of legislation but give me a choice between background checks and mandatory safety classes, give me the classes! People want to be able to handle firearms safely (except peeps that want to hurt/ kill).
You want to talk stupid? People having no clue taking classes to handle their handgun safely... good idea to me. In New York, home of lets figure out how to restrict firearm ownership. Me, a twenty plus year holder of a NY concealed carry permit. I want to get my CT non resident carry permit. I gotta take a pistol safety course. Now the stupid part....In NY a resident can't take this course if 21 or older......No, get your permit, get a gun and then come to us and we'll teach you to handle it safely.
I'm not into lots of legislation but give me a choice between background checks and mandatory safety classes, give me the classes! People want to be able to handle firearms safely (except peeps that want to hurt/ kill).
Deaf Smith
New member
People die everyday cause of that. Not just CCW but lots of things. Motorcycles, utralights, ATVs, horses, etc...
Death has may ways to find you if you don't do your homework.
And yes teaching CHL for 10 years I've seen all kinds of people who didn't have a clue about their chosen weapon.
And guess how bad it is going to be for countries like the UK that have banned most access to guns. 95 percent of the recruits will just be totaly ignorant but they will need an army built up fast.
Deaf
FrankenMauser
New member
While I understand there are many people that enjoy having the opportunity to get a Utah Non-Resident permit with the easiest of courses....
I am not a fan.
Even as a Resident, I think there should be more requirements for the courses. And... I understand why live-fire was removed as a requirement*, but it needs to be reinstated to get a permit. There are far too many permit holders that have, literally, never fired a gun in their life (including the one they carry daily). The first time one of these inexperience persons causes issues, it's going to negatively impact all permit holders.
Utah used to require actual qualification with the type of handgun (semi-auto, revolver, derringer, etc) the applicant was intending to carry (or could re-qualify for a small fee, later on, if the type of firearm changed). But, if you could not prove you were safe enough to load, handle, and fire the handgun; and could not maintain good enough control to score 20 CoM (huge target) hits in 40 rounds, your instructor would not sign off on your application. (A 50% hit rate, on a massive Center of Mass target - and more than 60% of applicants couldn't pass!) :barf:
I really wish Utah would bring that requirement back in some way.
*The live-fire requirement was initially removed due to price-gouging by indoor ranges in the Salt Lake area, the lack of indoor ranges (there were only 6 in the entire state, at the time), and a peculiar regulation change that made it incredibly difficult to operate an indoor range for a profit. Almost all of the ranges had to close their doors - at least temporarily. Two in the Salt Lake area folded completely (including the retail side of the businesses). When there wasn't a series of incidents involving negligent permit holders (that hadn't proven they could handle the weapons), the change stuck.
My worry with people that get there CCW permits that don't know anything about guns and don't use good sense to learn more is this. If they end up in a situation that causes them to pull there gun and they end up hurting some innocent person the anti-gun people are going to use that as a platform to have even more restrictive gun laws put in place. I believe that everyone has a right to protect themselves. But, I also believe that everyone has the right to use the common sense God gave them.
Berreez,
What you're seeing is a result of the many decades of a society making guns taboo, essentially demonizing someone for even considering to learn the intricacies of firearm ownership. Now, we have all of these concerned law abiding citizens coming out of the wood work, so to speak, with the desire to fulfill an obvious need.
This always happens during a period of enlightenment. People are regaining their rights and along with that comes a huge learning curve. Your role, with your experience, should be to offer as much assistance to as many willing subjects as possible.
As Kilimanjaro wrote, I'll take my chances with the citizenry. They want to learn, they're responsible and they're seeking to correct their deficiencies.
Let's stop letting the fears of a few hamstring our country's progress.
What you're seeing is a result of the many decades of a society making guns taboo, essentially demonizing someone for even considering to learn the intricacies of firearm ownership. Now, we have all of these concerned law abiding citizens coming out of the wood work, so to speak, with the desire to fulfill an obvious need.
This always happens during a period of enlightenment. People are regaining their rights and along with that comes a huge learning curve. Your role, with your experience, should be to offer as much assistance to as many willing subjects as possible.
As Kilimanjaro wrote, I'll take my chances with the citizenry. They want to learn, they're responsible and they're seeking to correct their deficiencies.
Let's stop letting the fears of a few hamstring our country's progress.
leadchucker
New member
There was a brief quiz following the CCW class here in NC, and I was scored on my shooting.
There were only two in my class, and we both passed with flying colors. It was easy, real easy - maybe a little too easy. I suspect that many times, totally incompetent people get passed. But I fear that any attempts to make a more selective testing procedure would be a total train wreck just like always.
There were only two in my class, and we both passed with flying colors. It was easy, real easy - maybe a little too easy. I suspect that many times, totally incompetent people get passed. But I fear that any attempts to make a more selective testing procedure would be a total train wreck just like always.
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of religion?
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of speech?
There is no mandate. Sure, we should take training to exercise our right to bear arms, the same thing regarding freedom of speech. I had an Accounting Professor who stressed, it doesn't matter how much knowledge you have, if you can't present that knowledge, its worthless, so yes we should take our speech and written communication classes, yet if we tried to pass a law making training for the freedom of speech there would be revolution.
Why is the 2nd Amendment different?
Is mandatory government training the way to go??? I've been a LE firearms instructor since the 70s. My certification is still valid. In all these years if I learned nothing else I've learn that cops, on the average, can't shoot for crap. I don't know of any state that doesn't have mandatory training for LE officers.
Same thing, Since the 70s I've been heavily involved in teaching soldiers to shoot, Active and Reserve forces. Guess what, like cops, most soldiers can't shoot for crap, yet they have mandatory training.
Why would mandatory training for civilians be any different? All you will accomplish is adding an undo hardship on the American Citizen who wants to excises his/her God Given/Constitutional Protected Right.
Regardless be it LE, Military or Civilian, if a person cares he will seek training, if that person doesn't, he/she wont.
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of speech?
There is no mandate. Sure, we should take training to exercise our right to bear arms, the same thing regarding freedom of speech. I had an Accounting Professor who stressed, it doesn't matter how much knowledge you have, if you can't present that knowledge, its worthless, so yes we should take our speech and written communication classes, yet if we tried to pass a law making training for the freedom of speech there would be revolution.
Why is the 2nd Amendment different?
Is mandatory government training the way to go??? I've been a LE firearms instructor since the 70s. My certification is still valid. In all these years if I learned nothing else I've learn that cops, on the average, can't shoot for crap. I don't know of any state that doesn't have mandatory training for LE officers.
Same thing, Since the 70s I've been heavily involved in teaching soldiers to shoot, Active and Reserve forces. Guess what, like cops, most soldiers can't shoot for crap, yet they have mandatory training.
Why would mandatory training for civilians be any different? All you will accomplish is adding an undo hardship on the American Citizen who wants to excises his/her God Given/Constitutional Protected Right.
Regardless be it LE, Military or Civilian, if a person cares he will seek training, if that person doesn't, he/she wont.
Are you, personally and individually, safer and better able to protect yourself if you've had some decent training? Absolutely. The better trained you are, the better able you are to protect yourself and thus the safer you'll be. If you want to carry a pistol and don't get training, you're a fool.
But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.
Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.
Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.
With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?
Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.
There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.
In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.
pax
But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.
Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.
Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.
With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?
Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.
There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.
In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.
pax
No training required to spout whatever senseless opinion one so chooses, just read on TFL if you want proof.
Our government has attempted to make training available to help us better exercise this right through public education, and I think it's pretty obvious that the education system is a raging success. Just look at how standardized tests have helped ensure that we are by far the most literate and articulate people on the earth. We have assume that further governmental regulation of testing and training will produce similar results in terms of responsible firearms ownership, right? 
I think you are overstating things. Training helps but it is not guarantee. Unless you practice the skills you learn training will not help you protect yourself. You are attempting to paint a straight line when in reality there are a lot more factors that will come into play to keep yourself safe.
Also I think calling someone who does not get training a fool is a bit harsh. Good training is expensive and not available to everyone. Should one not protect themselves because they cannot afford training?
WVsig ~
Good training is necessary, but not sufficient. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary.
Practice is necessary, but without training you will practice the wrong things and fail to practice some of the right things. A good mind set is necessary, but without training you're unlikely to develop that mindset to its full... and if you do begin developing the proper mindset, the very first thing you'll do is seek out training.
As for the cost factor: Yes, training can be expensive. But ignorance is far more expensive, and often tragic.
I say this as a woman who raised five children on almost nothing, during years when we were so broke we would have had to save up to be called "poor." We weren't quite broke enough to eat boiled dishrag soup, but scraped icebox was indeed on the menu. My husband and I deliberately chose to rear our own home-grown children, and that means we lived entirely on his salary ... which was always less than $35k a year, sometimes a lot less. We have been broke and even more broke than that, but we have never taken government assistance nor asked anyone else to help us feed our children.
When I decided to arm myself against a dangerous world, I had to find ways to buy ammunition out of that too-tight grocery budget. A friend of ours bought me my first training class (and bless him for it!) At that time, I discovered that simply owning the firearm was really not enough if I wanted to be able to stay safe and keep my family safe. The gun, by itself, doesn't do anything. It needs someone behind it who knows what she's doing.
It would have been very easy to say, "Well, that was all I could do" and to quit learning right there. But that class really showed me that I needed to learn more if I wanted to be well-prepared to protect myself and my little boys. So I worked my tail off to keep learning more: I scrounged brass, worked out three-cornered barter deals, worked weekend jobs while my husband was home, traded babysitting hours with friends so the kids would be taken care of while I was at school, borrowed books, shamelessly used every friend who knew more than I did. Eventually I'd learned enough that the three-cornered barter deals turned into straight barter deals: "We'll let you take the next class if you'll work on the line for this last class." It took a very long time to reach that point and it only happened because I was bound and determined to make it happen.
Now when people hear how much training I've had, they say stuff to me like, "Well, that just means you're rich! You could just throw money away on classes like that!" When I encourage others to get training, they retort that training is for rich people. They tell me that regular people can't afford it and that anyone who says people really need training is either an elitist or a snob.
That really hurts, because it's not true. What I know, what I've learned, what I've studied ... I worked for that. For every class I took, I sweated hours in the hot sun or the freezing rain on a weekend construction site. Or I humiliated myself grabbing other people's garbage to recycle. Or I left my children with someone else's mom so I could work a mind-numbing, boring seasonal job tagging Christmas trees. Learning more was a high priority for me and I acted like it.
Most of the people who complain that training is expensive, actually have far more resources than I ever did. And at that, I ended up with far more training than most really need.
When I say to you that people need training, and the more training they get the safer and better off they are -- I believe that, with all my heart. I have put my sweat and sometimes my tears into that belief. I believe so strongly that good training can save lives that I've poured the last ten years of my life into helping others get that training too.
If you have the means to get training -- and nearly everyone in America does, one way or the other -- but you don't do it, you're being very foolish and short sighted. Firearms don't protect you by themselves. They aren't magic. They don't defend your family for you. They cannot be effectively used without skill, and skill only comes to those who work for it.
pax
Good training is necessary, but not sufficient. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary.
Practice is necessary, but without training you will practice the wrong things and fail to practice some of the right things. A good mind set is necessary, but without training you're unlikely to develop that mindset to its full... and if you do begin developing the proper mindset, the very first thing you'll do is seek out training.
As for the cost factor: Yes, training can be expensive. But ignorance is far more expensive, and often tragic.
I say this as a woman who raised five children on almost nothing, during years when we were so broke we would have had to save up to be called "poor." We weren't quite broke enough to eat boiled dishrag soup, but scraped icebox was indeed on the menu. My husband and I deliberately chose to rear our own home-grown children, and that means we lived entirely on his salary ... which was always less than $35k a year, sometimes a lot less. We have been broke and even more broke than that, but we have never taken government assistance nor asked anyone else to help us feed our children.
When I decided to arm myself against a dangerous world, I had to find ways to buy ammunition out of that too-tight grocery budget. A friend of ours bought me my first training class (and bless him for it!) At that time, I discovered that simply owning the firearm was really not enough if I wanted to be able to stay safe and keep my family safe. The gun, by itself, doesn't do anything. It needs someone behind it who knows what she's doing.
It would have been very easy to say, "Well, that was all I could do" and to quit learning right there. But that class really showed me that I needed to learn more if I wanted to be well-prepared to protect myself and my little boys. So I worked my tail off to keep learning more: I scrounged brass, worked out three-cornered barter deals, worked weekend jobs while my husband was home, traded babysitting hours with friends so the kids would be taken care of while I was at school, borrowed books, shamelessly used every friend who knew more than I did. Eventually I'd learned enough that the three-cornered barter deals turned into straight barter deals: "We'll let you take the next class if you'll work on the line for this last class." It took a very long time to reach that point and it only happened because I was bound and determined to make it happen.
Now when people hear how much training I've had, they say stuff to me like, "Well, that just means you're rich! You could just throw money away on classes like that!" When I encourage others to get training, they retort that training is for rich people. They tell me that regular people can't afford it and that anyone who says people really need training is either an elitist or a snob.
That really hurts, because it's not true. What I know, what I've learned, what I've studied ... I worked for that. For every class I took, I sweated hours in the hot sun or the freezing rain on a weekend construction site. Or I humiliated myself grabbing other people's garbage to recycle. Or I left my children with someone else's mom so I could work a mind-numbing, boring seasonal job tagging Christmas trees. Learning more was a high priority for me and I acted like it.
Most of the people who complain that training is expensive, actually have far more resources than I ever did. And at that, I ended up with far more training than most really need.
When I say to you that people need training, and the more training they get the safer and better off they are -- I believe that, with all my heart. I have put my sweat and sometimes my tears into that belief. I believe so strongly that good training can save lives that I've poured the last ten years of my life into helping others get that training too.
If you have the means to get training -- and nearly everyone in America does, one way or the other -- but you don't do it, you're being very foolish and short sighted. Firearms don't protect you by themselves. They aren't magic. They don't defend your family for you. They cannot be effectively used without skill, and skill only comes to those who work for it.
pax
motorhead0922
New member
I am very thankful for the freedom we Missourians enjoy.
To me, gun ownership is similar to home schooling. It's a freedom and personal responsibility issue. A huge responsibility; but in Missouri both are relatively unencumbered by regulations. Do home schoolers fumble and bumble around for a while? Sure. Then they get their act together, and their kids excel. Do newbie gun owners bumble around for a while? Sure. Do they accidentally shoot someone? No more often than experienced gun owners, as Pax superbly noted. Do they get their act together and help make society safer? Yes.
Remember what situation we are looking at here. All the CCW permit does is allow a person to stick a gun in his or her pocket or purse without committing a felony. The newbies already qualify to be gun owners.
To me, gun ownership is similar to home schooling. It's a freedom and personal responsibility issue. A huge responsibility; but in Missouri both are relatively unencumbered by regulations. Do home schoolers fumble and bumble around for a while? Sure. Then they get their act together, and their kids excel. Do newbie gun owners bumble around for a while? Sure. Do they accidentally shoot someone? No more often than experienced gun owners, as Pax superbly noted. Do they get their act together and help make society safer? Yes.
Remember what situation we are looking at here. All the CCW permit does is allow a person to stick a gun in his or her pocket or purse without committing a felony. The newbies already qualify to be gun owners.
I used to think the same way, but, I saw a few folks getting the permit that I question their ability to even load a gun let alone shoot it and not miss their target. One gal looked to be 70ish and scared of anything gun but her hubby was pushin her to get the permit. Not one round was fired by anyone.
I dont wish to get shot by someone dont know how to handle a weapon.
There is a lot more guns out there todasy than a year ago and it will continue to increase. I only hope the gun related accidents do not increase too.
At least show you can safely load, unload and shoot the thing before a permit is issued is my take on this.
Getting shot is a bad thing, um ok.....
I would hope that if one of the not very competent CHL holders was in a church auditorium, or other crowded place when an attack occurred, he would recognize his limitations, and refrain from shooting unless the BG was within a few feet from him.
Having helped teach several CCW classes I know that the average person is not good enough to shoot in a crowded area.
Regards,
Jerry
Having helped teach several CCW classes I know that the average person is not good enough to shoot in a crowded area.
Regards,
Jerry
I've seen people who can't speak English, or who write poorly (me for one), shell we deprive them of the freedom of speech until the get training?
Who sets the standard for that training, Your ideals or Mine?
Same with firearms training, who sets the standards, the Brady Bunch or the NRA.
We saw how well that worked with Voting in the 50s and 60s.
I'm all for training, I provide training, and now days I don't even charge for the training I provide. You can't force one to learn how to shoot, regardless of whether its free from individuals or mandated by the government.
PAX's example of Washington & Oregon are perfect examples. All mandatory government training does is prevent one from exercising their God Given/Constitution Protected rights. Its in fact a tax, a tax on our freedoms.