PDA

View Full Version : Went to my CCW Class this past weekend.


berreez
March 7, 2011, 09:30 AM
WOW... I just completed my CCW class this past weekend in Missouri. There were probably 20 people in the class and there were a lot of married couples and women.

Now Missouri is a “shall issue” state and after reviewing the state laws I’ve got to say they are geared towards the CCW holder.

Anyway, what really surprised me was the inexperience of several people. Some had never fired a pistol until that day. The instructors worked hard on the range with them but I just couldn’t help but thinking that they shouldn’t have a permit until they gained some experience.

I don’t what to come off the wrong way but what might happen if they ever had to pull their weapon? I just feel a person needs to be comfortable with a pistol before they ever consider carrying one in public. Now I’m all about protecting oneself, but you shouldn’t put others in danger doing it.

Silent Bob
March 7, 2011, 09:45 AM
Yeah, at my Texas CHL class we had one guy show up with a Ruger P95 and a zip-loc bag filled with various reloads this guy had managed to scrounge up, they actually jammed his P95 several times during the shooting test and as anyone with a Ruger P95 knows they usually feed rocks.

We also had an elderly man in a wheelchair with some sort of compact 1911, he lacked the hand strength to rack the slide on the gun, and also managed to shoot his neighbor's target several times. Turns out he had never fired the pistol before either and had a number of malfunctions, which caused the instructor to admonish the class to never carry a weapon without first function-testing it.

TailGator
March 7, 2011, 10:18 AM
An age old problem: How do you legislate wisdom and common sense? What follows will be a debate on the rights of people to arm themselves under the second amendment versus the need perceived by some to assure that they do so safely. There is a cultural issue in play, in that knowledge of firearm safety was far more common in the day that the second amendment was written than it is now. But regulating ownership, possession, and use of firearms puts a foot on the slippery slope of regulating a fundamental right. Opponents of the second amendment have demonstrated a willingness to use any small concession as an opening in which to drive a wedge with a goal of eliminating private ownership of firearms. This issue is less simple than some on either side would make it out to be, but that militancy by antis has had the effect of a necessary hardening of the positions of those who defend 2A rights. What you saw was a manifestation of the legitimacy of that debate. If only it could be conducted honestly without hidden agendas on the part of firearm opponents.

ZCORR Jay
March 7, 2011, 11:30 AM
You will never cease to be amazed at the lack or research and practice people do before jumping into something... regardless of how dangerous it can be.

rocky.223
March 7, 2011, 05:26 PM
I am going to take my ccw class soon berreez. As I am in the St. Louis area I was wondering where you took yours and How were the instructors? I'll probably take mine at the range/school I am a member of. Thankfully, I have yet to run into any problems with the employee's or other members.

kilimanjaro
March 7, 2011, 06:32 PM
They have the same right to a weapon and a permit as anyone else. I've met such folks, you can mention the evenings each week you are at the range, offer to give some pointers, and then actually spend some time with one or two of them, that would be proactive approach to what you perceive as a problem.

You do not want to see a training requirement for your CCW, that will be a matter of law, and the politicians write laws. The anti-gun folks would just love to require $900 courses over six months of time, and competency certificates, weeks to get signatures, denials of permits, and of course big fees for all. Policies like that would probably kill more innocents than any number of wild misses or malfunctions.

I'll take my chances with the citizenry, thanks.

Mello2u
March 10, 2011, 11:17 PM
berreez, you raise a valid concern about safety.

TailGator addresses a few of the most critical areas which come in to conflict concerning the government's role is issuing a concealed weapon's permit.

Consider, you may distinguish between the role of government in issuing the permit to carry from imposing criminal penalties or civil penalties for a person who misuses a firearm.

Some states have no training requirement.

Some people feel that the role of government in issuing a permit to carry a concealed weapon is satisfied when the state determines the the person applying for the permit is an adult citizen of the state who has not been convicted of a prohibited act (felony or possibly other acts) or been adjudicated a mental defective. The issuance of a concealed weapon's permit is not a certificate of competence in the use of deadly force.

States can deal with misuse of a firearm with the existing laws on the books.

Is the role of the government to make you safe or keep you safe? I submit that it is not. That is your responsibility.

Hiker 1
March 10, 2011, 11:57 PM
I teach Basic Handgun, which provides the necessary training for a CHP here in Colorado. It's amazing what people do. I've seen folks actually unpack their brand-new gun in the class. I've had gals buy guns that they couldn't handle b/c a well-meaning male told them to get a .40 instead of a 9mm or whatever. I've had the loud-mouth know-it-all who couldn't operate his gun. You name it.

Ideally, they should have a certain level of capability beforehand, but at least they are going through the steps to get initial training.

Jake Balam
March 11, 2011, 12:01 AM
I had no ccw class, I had common sense though.

Fired five hundred rds through my gun before I carried, still wasn't comfortable enough to carry chambered after the first year.

catzor
March 11, 2011, 12:30 AM
My best buddy's little sister and I were pretty tight growing up. I don't see her very often anymore since I moved away from home, but last summer I had come home from college and was standing in the street talking to a neighbor and fellow firearm enthusiast when she comes walking up behind us. To my astonishment, she told me the her and her boyfriend had decided to get CCW permits. The following is a rough reenactment of the conversation that followed:

Me: Oh, wow. Does he shoot?
Her: He has before, but not a lot. His dad is going to pass a gun down to him and we're going to scrounge up the pennies to get me one at the same time.
Me: Do you know what you're getting?
Her: We picked something out the other day, but I can't remember what it was called.
Me: Maybe a [named several popular, inexpensive ccw guns to try to prompt her to remember]?
Her: I just can't remember...
Me: Was it a semi auto or a revolver?
Her: ...I'm not sure...
Me: Well...ugh...do you maybe remember what caliber it was?
Her: THAT'S IT! It was a "caliber"!
Me: ...

:confused:

Ryder
March 11, 2011, 05:38 AM
I've left loaded guns with my wife when leaving the house. No way she could load the gun on her own but she only needed to know where it was, how to release the safety, how to point it at the bad guy, and how to pull the trigger. I'd leave it up to her to know when her life is in danger since that is not rocket science either.

Everyone has a right to defend their lives. That's not dependant on anybody elses sense of superiority.

smince
March 11, 2011, 01:53 PM
I guess us States that have NO training requirement for a permit really scare you :rolleyes:

berreez
March 11, 2011, 03:53 PM
Thanks for the comments, but some of you are taking what I said a little too far. I never said anything about be superior to anyone. My concern was what might happen to innocents if/and when these inexperienced CCW holders have to pull their weapon. I for one wouldn’t be surprised that the ones in my class didn’t end up shooting themselves and having the BG take their weapon.
I’m all for the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect yourself, but I feel you should have at least fired a weapon before the day you became “qualified” to carry it.
Hey, I’m an old retired 82nd Airborne 1SG who had years of training with fire arms and when I was fired upon during the Gulf War I still was afraid. BUT I feel the training is what saved my rear-end. Untrained civilians scare me…………:(

aarondhgraham
March 11, 2011, 04:08 PM
And that's not to say the topic is a bad thing,,,
But every time it does come up you have the same two sides arguing it out.

One side says there should be mandated training before issuing a permit,,,
The other side says no training should be government mandated.

Personally I thing kilimanjaro said it all:

You do not want to see a training requirement for your CCW, that will be a matter of law, and the politicians write laws. The anti-gun folks would just love to require $900 courses over six months of time, and competency certificates, weeks to get signatures, denials of permits, and of course big fees for all.

But here's how I think it would be implemented:
Legislators will establish an Agency and give them regulatory powers.
Then that agency can make rules that have the force of law all by themselves.

In case you are wondering,,,
That's what our lovely BATFE is right now.

So, on one level we will all (or most of us) agree that some level of training rather than just a legal orientation would be a good thing,,,
But most of us (at least I hope so) would be against government mandated training to obtain a permit.

There was a young lady in my class who had never shot a handgun in her life,,,
It scared the heck out of me that this person would be able to carry a gun,,,
Believe me that the agency would think the same thing,,,
And require so much training she couldn't afford it.

That's backdoor gun control at it's finest,,,
Creating an environment where only the affluent can exercise their rights.

Just my not-so-humble opinion
Your mileage may vary.

Aarond

Glenn E. Meyer
March 11, 2011, 04:09 PM
So far we haven't seen a big difference in performance of concealed carry types between training and no training states.

However, the level of 'training' in CCW classes is rather minimal.

locnload
March 13, 2011, 08:31 AM
The Colorado legislature is in the process of attempting a "Constitutional Carry" law. I am going through an NRA Instructor Training class this weekend, and our instructors are dead set against this law. They site fears of people being arrested in mass for things like brandishing, menacing, and that type of thing because they do not know the laws. I suppose their concern may be somewhat justified, although indication from other states with Constutional Carry have not shown that to be a big problem. I suspect that our instructors, as good of guys as they are, may be somewhat motivated in their beliefs by the idea that people will not have to pay them $150 for a class before they can carry. My thoughts are that in the long run, those that are serious will seek training on their own accord, and those that are not will stop packing within a few weeks. And if the state does not roll out a campaign to inform the public of the basics of the new law, the training industry should. What better way to get some good publicity, and encourage people to come to them for training to better themselves. :)

Mello2u
March 14, 2011, 03:12 PM
berreez

Thanks for the comments, but some of you are taking what I said a little too far. I never said anything about be superior to anyone. My concern was what might happen to innocents if/and when these inexperienced CCW holders have to pull their weapon. I for one wouldn’t be surprised that the ones in my class didn’t end up shooting themselves and having the BG take their weapon.
I’m all for the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect yourself, but I feel you should have at least fired a weapon before the day you became “qualified” to carry it.
Hey, I’m an old retired 82nd Airborne 1SG who had years of training with fire arms and when I was fired upon during the Gulf War I still was afraid. BUT I feel the training is what saved my rear-end. Untrained civilians scare me…………

You have to distinguish between the government's duty to protect citizens from regulating citizen's actions where no conflict of rights is present.

Clearly after someone has shot someone else there is a conflict of rights; and then the criminal justice system gets involved. However, prior to someone taking an action which creates a conflict, should the government act with prior restraint? Merely because someone is not "qualified" should the government prohibit that person from carrying a firearm? Should the government only act after someone has acted to violate someone else's rights?

Personal responsibility dictates that one who chooses to carry a concealed weapon get training in the applicable law, defensive tactics, safety, and learn quite a bit about how firearms function and how cartridges and bullets function before they actually begin carrying. It also requires sufficient practice to become competent with the firearm chosen.

Laws already exist which address those acts which violate someone's right to life, liberty and property.

So distinguish between what, when and how the government should do things from what the individual should/must do for themselves as a responsible adult.

berreez
March 14, 2011, 04:02 PM
This happend right here in Missouri on 03-09-11 and makes my point . I feel for his family.

Missouri man accidentally shoots self at gun class
The Associated Press
Posted on March 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Updated Wednesday, Mar 9 at 3:51 PM

MOUNTAIN GROVE, Mo. (AP) -- A part-time police dispatcher in southwest Missouri died after accidentally shooting himself while taking a class to obtain a concealed carry gun permit.

Authorities say 63-year-old Glenn Seymour of Mountain Grove died after shooting himself in the chest Saturday at a class in rural Douglas County

Sheriff Chris Degase says witnesses reported that Seymour was injured while trying to take the safety off a Browning semi-automatic 9 mm weapon.

Degase calls the death a tragic accident.

pax
March 14, 2011, 04:13 PM
berreez,

That incident doesn't make your point for you. Here's a link to a recreation of what the shooter did in that class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7AMMF7WaB8

The video was made by a well known CCW instructor in MO, after he consulted with the officers who investigated the incident.

What it amounts to is that a state-licensed CCW instructor was trying to teach a very advanced skill to beginning students in a brief, 8-hour class. The skill was not and is not required for obtaining a carry permit in MO (nor in any other state I'm aware of). It's an unlikely skillset for a regular citizen to need; with only 8 hours in the class, regardless of what the state did or did not require, I'd think the instructor would do better to concentrate on skills with a much higher likelihood of being needed. And that skillset should never be taught with live firearms, unloaded or no -- it's a dummy-gun situation for sure.

This wasn't a case of an ignorant new shooter demonstrating how stupid new people can be with firearms if they haven't had a class. (Thus, doesn't make your case for you.) Rather, it's a case of a firearms instructor telling his students to do something they absolutely should not have been doing without adequate safeguards that were not present, and one of his students paying the ultimate price for it.

pax

FTG-05
March 14, 2011, 04:14 PM
"They have the same right to a weapon and a permit as anyone else. I've met such folks, you can mention the evenings each week you are at the range, offer to give some pointers, and then actually spend some time with one or two of them, that would be proactive approach to what you perceive as a problem.

You do not want to see a training requirement for your CCW, that will be a matter of law, and the politicians write laws. The anti-gun folks would just love to require $900 courses over six months of time, and competency certificates, weeks to get signatures, denials of permits, and of course big fees for all. Policies like that would probably kill more innocents than any number of wild misses or malfunctions.

I'll take my chances with the citizenry, thanks. "

QFT, from someone who has worked with the Gov't for over 30 years.

markj
March 14, 2011, 04:26 PM
What will happen to that instructor? Will he be charged on this? What a bad thing to have happen.

berreez
March 14, 2011, 05:41 PM
You're right that doesn't make the point I was trying to get cross. Thanks for the youtube link. That cleared it up for me.

Capt Charlie
March 14, 2011, 08:17 PM
Further, the incident berreez is referring to is currently under discussion here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=444087).

Cascade1911
March 14, 2011, 09:37 PM
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
March 14, 2011, 11:09 PM
You will never cease to be amazed at the lack or research and practice people do before jumping into something... regardless of how dangerous it can be.

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
March 15, 2011, 02:38 AM
I guess us States that have NO training requirement for a permit really scare you

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.

Kinta
March 15, 2011, 08:31 AM
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.

jbrown50
March 16, 2011, 07:56 AM
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.

leadchucker
March 16, 2011, 10:25 AM
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.

kraigwy
March 16, 2011, 10:45 AM
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.

pax
March 16, 2011, 11:02 AM
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

WVsig
March 16, 2011, 11:43 AM
You will never cease to be amazed at the lack or research and practice people do before jumping into something... regardless of how dangerous it can be.

You mean like driving a car... Seriously you are much more likely to be killed by an unskilled driver than an unskilled CCW holder.

scsov509
March 16, 2011, 12:20 PM
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of speech?

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? :rolleyes:

WVsig
March 16, 2011, 12:58 PM
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.


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?

pax
March 16, 2011, 02:04 PM
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

motorhead0922
March 16, 2011, 02:38 PM
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.

markj
March 16, 2011, 03:35 PM
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of religion?
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of speech?

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.....

JerryM
March 16, 2011, 03:56 PM
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

kraigwy
March 16, 2011, 04:04 PM
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of religion?
Do we have to take training to practice our freedom of speech?

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

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.

WVsig
March 16, 2011, 04:06 PM
Sorry Pax calling people who do not see eye to eye with you fools is a pretty poor was to convince people they need training but that is your approach so good luck with it.

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.

Sorry but simply believing something is the case does not make it true.

DougNew
March 16, 2011, 04:19 PM
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.
That's fascinating - anyone know when they dropped this requirement?


At least show you can safely load, unload and shoot the thing before a permit is issued
I'd support that. It's not an onerous requirement, it matches the expectation we have of fellow gun owners, and it can be taught in a simple and effective manner (unlike the complex weak-hand draw alluded to on Page 1 of this Thread, with pax's excellent video link).

FrankenMauser
March 17, 2011, 01:23 AM
At least show you can safely load, unload and shoot the thing before a permit is issued
I'd support that. It's not an onerous requirement, it matches the expectation we have of fellow gun owners, and it can be taught in a simple and effective manner (unlike the complex weak-hand draw alluded to on Page 1 of this Thread, with pax's excellent video link).

Although that is technically in the course requirements for Utah resident permits, it doesn't seem to be enforced by most instructors, from what I have read on local forums (particularly the courses taught in the instructors' homes).

Kodyo
March 17, 2011, 02:00 AM
Where in Texas did you take the CHL class?

Me and my brother will be taking one over summer and are looking for a place near Austin.

markj
March 17, 2011, 02:31 PM
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?

Well for one thing, I wont get killed or hurt by their lack of knowledge like a gun will do. Isnt even close to the same thing. I said my piece:

At least show you can safely load, unload and shoot the thing before a permit is issued

Nothing about accuracy, just that the person can load, unload and safely shoot it. This is to much to ask?

There will be literally thousands of permits issued here by the end of this year, the chance of an accidental shooting increases along with that.

motorhead0922
March 17, 2011, 02:47 PM
Nothing about accuracy, just that the person can load, unload and safely shoot it. This is to much to ask?

No, it's not too much to ask.

In Missouri, basically those are the requirements, but you have to demonstrate this for both revolver and semi-auto. There is an accuracy requirement of demonstrating the ability to hit a B27 silhouette 15 times out of 20 at 7 yards with the gun of your choice.

Doublea A
March 17, 2011, 08:29 PM
To Berreez,
You have raised a very important observation. The problem is that a question about gun safety always becomes divisive with 2nd amendment rights. A week ago somebody raised a similar question and I tried answering learning towards safety responsible gun ownership and I was accused of being a gun control advocate. But it is a very important discussion that needs to be addressed without all the passion. I grew up around firearms and my father always taught us about Safety! Safety! Safety and responsibilities. I think with rights must come personal responsibilities. When I took my CCW qualification I was aware with the difference of firearms experience during the class. I also took four of my friends to the range six months after my CCW who had minimum firearm experience. It was amazing how simple instructions like; muzzle control and finger off the trigger went to deaf ears. I was yelling at each of them but time after time they repeated the same error again and again. Maybe they are some really dumb friends of mine. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I have vowed never to encourage any friends of mine to get CCW until they have at least mastered basic firearm manipulation. I care too much for their safety and others. I won't do it now or ever. Do you know how many times I have gone to the range and have seen some guys goofing around with the firearms and I have waited till the left before I entered? Being shot is not fun whether intended or through negligence. As a firearm owner, wouldn't you want to be knowledgeable with your firearm and the laws surrounding the state you reside, so that you don’t do anything stupid due to ignorance or negligence in enabling the gun grabbers reasons to try and restrict your 2nd amendment rights. This in my opinion is responsible gun ownership. There is no substitute for knowledge and training as I didn't know would not fly in court.

kraigwy
March 17, 2011, 09:49 PM
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?

Well for one thing, I wont get killed or hurt by their lack of knowledge like a gun will do. Isnt even close to the same thing.

Sorry, it is the same, the Constitution shouldn't be for sale.

smince
March 18, 2011, 08:52 AM
(A 50% hit rate, on a massive Center of Mass target - and more than 60% of applicants couldn't pass!)I've worked part-time at the local LE range. I can verify what kraigwy stated about cops: there are many who struggle to shoot that well with mandatory training.

I've seen an entire shift qualify with 80% being the 'high score' in the past.

But I don't worry about the average CCW holder shooting me accidentally any more than I worry about the average LE officer.

So, if it's all the same with ya'll, I'll just continue to pay my $25 a year for a (no-training required) permit and go on my way.

I will add that I agree 100% with pax posts on saving up the money for voluntary training.

motorhead0922
March 18, 2011, 11:01 AM
(A 50% hit rate, on a massive Center of Mass target - and more than 60% of applicants couldn't pass!)

Where did this quote come from? I don't see it in this thread.

I thought the Missouri accuracy requirement sounded easy so I asked my CCW instructor if he ever had someone flunk. IIRC, he said he had one guy have to try twice, then he passed. And my instructor teaches a LOT of classes. BTW, he is very thorough, conscientious, and careful.

smince
March 18, 2011, 11:08 AM
Where did this quote come from? I don't see it in this thread.Read post #26 again.

madmo44mag
March 18, 2011, 11:19 AM
There are many that take a CCW course that have never fired a gun. There are many that take the course and are regular shooters.
What I notice more than anything is that a lot of folks with in 6 month stop carrying.
Most I have spoke with state they begin to realize the reason they wanted the CCW was the cool factor. After carrying a while the weight of the responsibility was more than they anticipated or cared for.
This is just a personal observation for what it is worth.

markj
March 18, 2011, 03:13 PM
Sorry, it is the same, the Constitution shouldn't be for sale.

Aint for sale, but like I said, a mis spoken word will never kill me, a mis shot gun has that ability. And to become a US citizen a person needs to pass a test given in English, my sis in law is now US and my bro in law is now US citizens.

2 different items of our great Constitution.

kraigwy
March 18, 2011, 03:40 PM
2 different items of our great Constitution

And neither two require a test to be able to take advantage of our God Given Right.

Perhaps you can start an effort to amend the constitution to require training before one can excesses his/her rights it guarantees but until then ????

Mandated firearms training hasn't worked in police departments, in the military and it wont work in the civilian world. There is no evidence to the contrary. If a person wants to shoot, and learn how to shoot propertly and safely he will, if he doesn't he wont, regardless of the training. To require one to train, and to pay for that training is in fact a tax.

Teddy Roosevelt thought training should be provided to the American Citizen he created the DCM (now known as the CMP). It's free for the most part, but it is not mandatory. Many police and sheriff's departments and National Guard Units put on training for citizens, at no cost, or maybe a tad bit to cover the cost, but its not mandatory.

Putting a price on firearms training limits it to those who can afford it. If there a choice for a father or mother to pay $200 for training or food for their children, then guess what, that father and mother will carry to protect their "fed kids" without training.

Free or low cost shooting is available for all of us, all we have to do is take advantage of it, but to force on to pay for training he can't afford might cost him the ability to protect his family. I'm against that.

The government (federal state and local) paid a lot of money to make a firearms instructor out of me. That was from tax dollars. I'm retired now, but I'm still a certified, LE, CMP, and NRA instructor. I'll provide training free of charge to any citizen who comes to me. I'm not about to double charge them. I don't want anyone in my training class that HAS TO BE THERE, I only want people WHO WANT TO BE THERE.

I took an oath to the Constitution, I'm against any infringement on it, be it requiring one to pay a tax and train before he is protected by the constitution.

markj
March 18, 2011, 04:59 PM
And neither two require a test to be able to take advantage of our God Given Right.


What?? now you saying anyone can waltz in here and buy a gun? any non us citizen? everyone? No chance of that, there are requirements to be made first. Gotta follow them or go to jail right?

I never said pay, altho I did pay for my class and pay for my permit. No free lunchs here.

And show me where freedom of speech is really free. You must live in a fantasy world, our govt has had media blackouts, folks have had law suits for their version of free speech and lost.

I said my piece, a person should be able to load, unload and fire a gun before they are allowed to carry one, is just plain common sense.

Would you give a 2 year old a gun? Isnt that 2 year old the same as you on the 2nd amendment?

Ditto_95
March 18, 2011, 05:01 PM
A person is required by law to know the laws governing him/her regarding carrying a firearm.
Other than that, there should be no other requirement to CCW of own a firearm.
Since the COTUS says own and bear, carrying shouldn't be an issue.
Being responsible is the order of the day.
If you own and bear, be resposible for your own actions.

People shouldn't over think the requirement. Own what ever gun you want. Carry it responsibly. Don't shoot anyone you shouldn't. Shoot those that threaten your life.

Lets keep it simple and strictly by the constitution.:)

FTG-05
March 18, 2011, 08:42 PM
quote:
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

This is an excellent analysis. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Al


ETA: I'll be taking my Utah CCW class this Sunday down here in Alabama. I'm looking forward to it!

5whiskey
March 18, 2011, 11:50 PM
My personal opinion on this whole issue?

All citizens 21 years of age or older (a sound argument could be made for increasing that age, but I'll stick with 21 for now) should receive training prior to them carrying. The difference between me and a rabid anti-gunner? The government should not charge a fee, or permit, or any other craziness. There should be no form of discouragement, back door attempts to take away rights, or state influenced media coverage on how the masses will end up just shooting themselves if they do carry (remember the CBS "active shooter" piece with the guy in the class CCWing?). Governments should seek out all law-abiding adults and BEG them to carry so as to strike fear in the hearts of criminals everywhere. Training would be conducted by local LEO instructors for the cost of the ammo. Follow-on training would be offered quarterly, again for the cost of the ammo, but not required.

I personally feel that most decent Americans should feel like it's their duty to carry. Doing so stands a very real chance of saving an innocent person's life. There are 3 accounts, off the top of my head, of a legit self defense shooting that was justified in my county over the past year. The victim of the initial crime lived every time. 2 of 3 bad guys are 6' under now. That's just 3 that I know of right now, there may be another 1 or 2. If you leave your house more than once a week, chances are you will encounter at least one time in your life that you will be glad (or wish) that you were armed. That doesn't mean you will use your weapon, or draw it, or do anything other than be glad it's there just in case things go south.

Of course I don't think anyone should be FORCED to carry, but I think everyone should be encouraged to carry. In this manner, competency training could be administered without making it a condition of a constitutional right. I also believe folks that do not "opt in" should be allowed to carry, but at that time they would have to pay a fee for their carry permit. Much like how it works now. In that manner, why would anyone reject free training to pay money without the training? And, the important part, training is indeed administered.

markj
March 21, 2011, 02:23 PM
I'll be taking my Utah CCW class this Sunday

Will you be using the Utah state gun? The 1911 :) sorry, I just read this on cnn. Utah has made the browning 1911 their state gun, he was raised in Utah after all.


I have a question for the legals here, can a person on a work visa from another country purchase a handgun in the USA? and/or get a CCW to go along with it?

leadchucker
March 21, 2011, 03:26 PM
...I have a question for the legals here, can a person on a work visa from another country purchase a handgun in the USA? and/or get a CCW to go along with it?

The FIREARMS TRANSACTION RECORD PART I - OVER-THE-COUNTER (http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf) form asks these questions;
...If you are not a citizen of the United States, what is your INS-issued alien number or admission number?...
...Are you a nonimmigrant alien?...

I guess if you answer those questions satisfactorily, and get the Sheriff's office's blessing, you're good to go as far as buying goes.

...I, the undersigned applicant, being duly sworn, hereby make application for a concealed handgun permit and state that the following information is correct to the best of my knowledge.
I am a citizen of the United States and have been a resident of...

http://www.stanlysheriff.us/Concealed%20Gun%20Applicationpg3.pdf

As far as carrying concealed, looks like you're out of luck, at least in this state. IDK about other states.

cptnugget
March 21, 2011, 06:19 PM
We require quite a bit of education of children, for various reasons, to prepare them to be members of society. What if basic firearms use and safety were part of the standard physical education curriculum at, say, the high school level?

5whiskey
March 21, 2011, 06:34 PM
What if basic firearms use and safety were part of the standard physical education curriculum at, say, the high school level?

It should be, IMHO. We did have it through hunter safety and the FFA rifle team when I was in school. Now most schools would be aghast to know that there was a school sponsored rifle team. It really is a shame...:(

FTG-05
March 22, 2011, 07:53 AM
Will you be using the Utah state gun? The 1911 sorry, I just read this on cnn. Utah has made the browning 1911 their state gun, he was raised in Utah after all.


I have a question for the legals here, can a person on a work visa from another country purchase a handgun in the USA? and/or get a CCW to go along with it?

No, my dad's M1911 was stolen the Saturday before Christmas, 1986 :(.

I'll be using either my S&W Model 329PD or Glock 23.

According to the Utah CWP class I took this last Sunday, people from outside the country can get a Utah permit with their green card - they went over it pretty fast and I could care less, so didn't listen all that well to that part of the class.

ETA: you can download the Utah CWP here: http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html The requirements for non-citizens is on the back page.

Moondew
March 22, 2011, 08:15 AM
My .02

In my experience and observations some sort of training and or "mentoring" is invaluable to those who have had no previous reliable training or understanding of firearms.

Over the years I have taken lots of folks and tried to give them their initial experience in a safe fashion so that they would a least have the chance to learn in a safe environment and with a weapon that would not intimidate them. Give them a chance to experience how to properly shoot, control the weapon safely and they would have a chance to gain an understanding of what types of weapons there are so if they decide its for them they can make a educated decision. Not unlike learning to ride a motorcycle, taking flying or scuba lessons.

Everyone has rights but knowledge is power.

markj
March 23, 2011, 01:40 PM
What if basic firearms use and safety were part of the standard physical education curriculum at, say, the high school level?

I would love to see this. I would bet the accidental shootings would decrease as well, maybe not. But education is never a bad thing.

Aguila Blanca
March 23, 2011, 02:34 PM
I don’t what to come off the wrong way but what might happen if they ever had to pull their weapon? I just feel a person needs to be comfortable with a pistol before they ever consider carrying one in public. Now I’m all about protecting oneself, but you shouldn’t put others in danger doing it.
What you feel is irrelevent. The state decides what it considers a minimum level of handgun safety instruction before issuing a license/permit, and that's what you get in the CCW class.

If you don't think that provides adequate safety, lobby the state to require additional training before issuing permits. That'll make you REALLY popular.

Frankly, the entire notion of requiring any permit or training before people can carry is contrary to the clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

I’m all for the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect yourself, but I feel you should have at least fired a weapon before the day you became “qualified” to carry it.
Where does the word "qualified" appear in the 2nd Amendment?

You have a right to "feel" uncomfortable, but your feelings should not trump anyone's Constitutional right to carry a firearm.

FTG-05
March 23, 2011, 05:50 PM
Well said

berreez, you need to read post #31 in this thread over and over again until you get the point.

To whit: You're feelings not only do not matter vs. the Constitution, they're without any basis in fact.

Bullet94
March 23, 2011, 11:23 PM
Aguila Blanca
Frankly, the entire notion of requiring any permit or training before people can carry is contrary to the clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

I agree any permit or training should NOT be required.

But common sense dictates that some form of training whether it is free or costs should be taken by people that are first time gun owners for their safety and the safety of others but NOT ordered by the state or federal government.



.