The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 25, 2011, 10:17 AM   #101
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
Yes

The last class I was in when iowa changed its law to shall issue there were people who did not own or had never fired their weapons.

To carry a weapon you should be able to demonstrate loading, unloading, clearing a ftf, fte, drawing and fireing your weapon. Replace weapons with tools or firearms if you don't like my term

It scares me that someone can carry with out ever having fired in iowa. To renew the new permit I have to shoot to get one originally I don't.

Personally I have had thousands of hours of weapons training and range time. I don't expect people to have my level of training but some should be required by law. It is a right of every American to carry imo but its also a responsibility and one that should not be taken lightly.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 10:26 AM   #102
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
It seems to me that, in previous iterations of this thread (commonly raised topic), quite a few people have chimed in on the Utility side of the argument. To wit: those states that do not have additional training requirements have not seen a higher incidence of bad SD shoots by permit holders, and those states that have stringent requirements have not seen a significantly lower incidence of the same.

So, assuming we view SD and the ability to carry as "rights," and not "privileges," and since there has been no demonstrated advantage to additional training requirements, I find it almost incredible that so many forum members actually want the government to add requirements...

Some of these same folks were afraid of the recent House resolution on making states recognize the carry permits of other states, because they did not want increased governmental involvement...

Again, additional requirements added by instructors don't bother me a bit. But I personally think the governmental requirements should be minimal. Georgia has the right idea.
MLeake is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 10:43 AM   #103
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,186
I think ccw class should be about obtaining a reasonable amount of knowledge about rules, regulations and laws that pretain to use of force and carrying of a firearm in general. I think the class should only be taught by a qualified attorney. I think that actual firearms proficiency is a totally different issue and should be at the discretion of the ccw citizen.

As far as training and proficiency goes, I dont think I have any more right to carry than the lawful fellow in a wheel chair who can only hit a target at 5 yards. It should be up to the individual to act within the scope of their ability and training. (IMO of course)
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

Last edited by FireForged; November 25, 2011 at 05:45 PM.
FireForged is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 11:27 AM   #104
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
I think the class should only be taught by a qualified attorney.
Just like with economists, if you get three attorneys in a room you can get at least four opinions on almost any legal point.

Especially in a state like Virginia that has only common law lethal force rulings to go by.
We have NO statute law governing the use of lethal force. NONE.
Even for law enforcement.
brickeyee is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 11:54 AM   #105
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,687
No training requirements here and it's never been an issue as far as I know. Don't hear about negligent shootings often, but outside of hunting, they almost always seem to occur in the home. I've always suspected it's because people who aren't serious about firearms end up carrying their CCW in the sock drawer.
ATW525 is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 12:09 PM   #106
ActivShootr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 1,040
The class I took extensively covered gun handling skills. TN mandates that the student must fire 50 rounds at various distances and score at least a 70% on both the written and range portions of the course. I do however, think more emphasis should be placed on laws such as when and where to NOT carry, methods of carry, and maybe some shoot/no shoot scenarios.
ActivShootr is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 05:38 PM   #107
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,186
Quote:
Just like with economists, if you get three attorneys in a room you can get at least four opinions on almost any legal point.
True as many things are subjective and are ruled by the appellate courts but at least a attorney is qualified to speak on the matter and not just some laymans opinion based on a 3 day NRA course and television cop shows.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 11:58 AM   #108
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
but at least a attorney is qualified to speak on the matter
Some attorneys, but pretty far from all or any.
brickeyee is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 01:58 PM   #109
BRE346
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2011
Location: Victoria, TX
Posts: 158
My turn

I got my license in TX. An all day affair with at least four hours in the classroom being enlightened about liablilty.

We were expected to know how to handle our firearms, including including how to handle misfires. Our instructor helped several people, including me. I had trouble with a borrowed 1911, abandoned that and finished with another .45. I was so flustered that I failed. He allowed me to come back and try again after more practice. I passed then. I bought another lesson a few months later, just for the training, and took an advanced class months later, again just for the training. (That time there were a lot of deliberately jammed and messed up firearms for us to figure out.)

I wanted my daughter to be safe with a gun. A little kitchen-table training and an afternoon at the range coaching my daughter to handle a 9mm pistol and a .39 revolver made her safe with a firearm.

Would you hand the keys to a new car to your son and expect him to drive safely without a single lesson?

Licensing a gun-owner who has had no training would be disastrous.
__________________
Ancient Airman
BRE346 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 03:03 PM   #110
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
Licensing a gun-owner who has had no training would be disastrous.
Already proven wrong in a number of states.
brickeyee is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 10:05 AM   #111
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,377
A CHL class is no place to learn to use your weapon. You would assume that someone who wanted to carry concealed would take the time to learn to use the gun in question before starting to carry it around. Not always a good assumption.

As someone here mentioned, Texas requires a demonstration of 50 rounds, from various distances and at different speeds. This is not training, it's you showing the state that you can sort of hit a target without shooting yourself or the guy on your right.

I agree in principle that licensing the carry of firearms is a bad idea, Constitutionally. But in the real world, I'm happy that my state has set up a program that forces you demonstrate you can handle a gun you plan to carry, in public, and may at some point have to use to defend your life or the lives of those you love.

In my first CHL class, a woman proudly showed us a J-frame she had purchased to carry. She had NEVER fired it before coming to the class. She flunked the live fire portion badly. But rather than fail her and offer her the chance to return, free, after practicing, the instructor walked her through each series of fire and she finally hit the target enough to pass. So now there's somebody on the street with a loaded revolver who has fired it about 50 times on one afternoon with the help of a professional instructor. Want her to have your back? Want her driving around with her kids in the car and a loaded gun in her purse? Not me.

I've taken four training courses and visit my local range as often as I can. I still feel I'm undertrained and wish I had the money to take one of those days-long courses at Front Sight, etc. Absent that, I think I practice enough and read enough and think enough about self-defense to be prepared to deal with BGs in many, tho not all, situations. The woman above is a menace to society (I'm hoping she either saw the light and got trained, or abandoned her gun because it was too heavy). A license to carry doesn't mean you're ready to handle a loaded firearm in public, any more than a driver license indicates you're a great driver.
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 10:50 AM   #112
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,987
No
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 11:23 AM   #113
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,310
There were two people in my renewal class a few years ago. The fact that they had no experience with guns was stated at the start of the class. They seemed to think that gunhandling was going to be a big part of the class. They had never even fired a handgun before.

Now that said I have seen some people that were so careless in gunhandling it scares me to know that they have car keys too. If they are so carelss with a gun I do not want to see how they handle a car.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 10:04 AM   #114
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
How much training is really necessary to carry? You don't have to be an expert marksman to shoot an attacker at arm's length at an ATM. The main thing is how to handle stress, but not even a 40 hour course is going to prepare someone for that.

As far as safely handling a firearm, there are only two basic rules once the gun is loaded: keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, and keep your finger off the trigger. An 8 year old can understand it- it's not exactly rocket science.

So how much training is really necessary? We're not having a whole lot of accidents in FL, where we have a one shot requirement. There are people who choose to get more training. There are people who choose to get tens or hundreds of hours of training, voluntarily. I think that's a good thing. But I don't see requiring people with varying levels of training and ability to take an extensive state required course. You're not a police officer, you're not stopping bank robberies. You're just protecting yourself. The chance of you having to shoot 25 yards is negligible. The chance of you having a malfunction and having to clear it (or having time to clear it) is negligible. It should be up to you whether you choose to take that training.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 11:26 AM   #115
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Someone here has taken four training courses and goes to the range as often as they can and still feels undertrained? Doesn't everyone realize that armies go to war with soldiers who are "undertrained," much too young, have no experience, are short of critical materials and supplies, have inferior weapons (according to comments sprinkled throughout this forum) and are probably short staffed to boot. In fact, that has probably always been true. Then after they are in combat, they are even more shorthanded, have even less material and couldn't possibly pass any normal test for combat readiness.

The invading forces on June 6, 1944, might have been as ready as they would even have been, I might concede. I will also concede that I am undertrained, overaged, out of shape, have antique weapons improperly stored and poorly maintained. Moreover, my supply of ammunition is inadequate for more than a couple of shooting sessions and some of it is so old that it must be unreliable. My vision is going fast and I couldn't hit anything at fifty yards, which is the minimum distance that one should qualify at. Hopeless. Simply hopeless.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 12:10 PM   #116
MrWesson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Posts: 298
I'm torn.

I don't feel it should be a requirement passed by the Gov.

I do feel that each instructor should focus on it more.

My ccw class was large and I put like 4 rounds down range and watched other struggle but they didn't have time to correct it.

I'd like to see some local law enforcement offer advanced training at a reasonable price like a civilian marksman program or something.
MrWesson is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 01:13 PM   #117
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,549
Quote:
Someone here has taken four training courses and goes to the range as often as they can and still feels under-trained?
I have had several training course, several instructor courses, and have taught several course, pistol, rifle, shotgun, high power, sniping, etc etc.

Even coached rifle and pistol teams.

I still feel I'm "under-trained". Its never ending, its a case of you grow or you become stagnant.

I shoot all the time, and I don't get enough training and practice.

How can you expect a person to go through a 4 hour or 4 week training course and remain proficient. You can't. It wont happen.

So in reality, forced training for CCW requirements accomplishes nothing except to give the government a foot hold in controlling our shooting, and increases the price on our ability to protect ourselves and family.

As it's been pointing out, no where has lack of training proved to be dangerous in places that have no training. Just as the fears of mass gun fights by allowing CCW proved to be false.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 03:49 PM   #118
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
You are no doubt entirely correct but much hangs on what you expect to happen to you and how you plan (or expect) to react. In the recent and not so recent past of course, concealed carry was the exception for handgun owners and virtually all of the circumstances under which a firearm was used in defense was at home, inside the house. Even then probably very few training arrangements would duplicate any such circumstances. However, that is problematic to begin with and is the subject of another topic, I suppose.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 08:26 AM   #119
Ruark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2010
Posts: 183
I was a little surprised at how easy the Texas shooting qualification for a CHL was. Below are the shooting skill requirements to pass. This is shooting at the standard "human silhouette" target. Any shot inside the "8" ring which is a foot wide, scores 5 points. 175 passes. If you put all your 3 yard shots and 15 of your 7 yard shots inside the 8 ring, you've passed; you can completely miss all the 15 yard shots and it wouldn't matter, you already have your 175.

Firing begins with guns cocked and in the "low ready" position (held downward about 45 degrees).

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.

TEXAS CHL SHOOTING TEST
3 yards, 20 rounds

1 shot, 2 seconds, 5 times
2 shots, 3 seconds, 5 times
5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time

7 yards, 20 rounds

5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time
2 shots, 4 seconds, 1 time
3 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
1 shot, 3 seconds, 5 times
5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time

15 yards, 10 rounds

2 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
3 shots, 9 seconds, 1 time
5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time
Ruark is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 06:02 PM   #120
Mello2u
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
I am one of those who believes that there should be no state requirement of completing a class to get a concealed carry permit/license.

I agree with kraigwy's post above.

I think that the individual should seek out appropriate training so that they can be knowledgeable about the law, understand the use of deadly force in self-defense, and competent in the use of the handgun they choose to carry.

This training would likely be best if acquired in stages. Build a foundation, then build upon that. That building of competency takes time.

How many people are willing to spend 8 hours a day for 5 days = 40 hours to get what would really be the basics of skills and knowledge.
How much of that would be internalized and retained? The individual must decide what practice they need to remain competent.
Further, what of the expense of the training and ammunition?

For example, Gunsite's 250 Pistol course is listed for $1428. That price does include the recommended 1050 rounds of ammo. It does not include hotel or travel expenses which could amount to another $1000.

I fear government continually taking more of our liberties by passing rules, regulations and laws.

It must be distinguished what is the proper role of government. It is one thing to have a system to prevent "prohibited" persons from getting a concealed Carry License (CCL); it is another to promulgate barriers to law abiding citizens by calling them safety measures.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.
" Frederic Bastiat
Mello2u is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 09:36 PM   #121
dyl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 518
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)
dyl is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 09:50 PM   #122
Deja vu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Border of Idaho & Montana
Posts: 2,180
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.
__________________
Shot placement is everything! I would rather take a round of 50BMG to the foot than a 22short to the base of the skull.

all 25 of my guns are 45/70 govt, 357 mag, 22 or 12 ga... I believe in keeping it simple

Last edited by Deja vu; November 30, 2011 at 10:02 PM.
Deja vu is offline  
Old December 1, 2011, 01:17 PM   #123
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
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.
brickeyee is offline  
Old December 2, 2011, 12:37 PM   #124
kazanski612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 120
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
kazanski612 is offline  
Old December 2, 2011, 02:07 PM   #125
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
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
oneounceload is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13837 seconds with 7 queries