should CCW classes spend more time on Handling the weapons?

[Hunter Rose]

Have to say, I'm against mandatory training.

As has been said: one of the favorite backdoors for gun control is to make it too onerous to actually get a permit (or, in some cases, a firearm). This does NOTHING to advance the cause of gun rights.

[BlueTrain]

I agree. It's only a short step to something that makes it impossible to get a permit. The same thing has happened with hunting licenses and in some countries, it's even worse (that is, more difficult). This sort of trend goes back probably 75 or 80 years. I think it is part of a larger trend to "professionalize" just about everything. That trend has nothing to do with government, it's merely that those who were the first to do something want to monopolize the game, calling themselves the annointed experts. You want to learn to hang-glide? You have to be trained by the certified hang gliding instructor.

There is also a similiar thing present especially in large cities, part of which is perhaps justifiable and part of which is a control thing. You want to have that tree in your backyard cut down? Well, you can't do it youself. You have to get a licensed, bonded and insured tree expert to do the job, after you have the proper permit. Rich people of course cut the tree down first.

In the world of firearms there is a common claim that because a gun is such a dangerous thing, you need very expert instruction. Maybe they're too dangerous for the likes of us.

[brickeyee]

Virginia has very little training required.

The state hunter safety class is allowed.

We have not had a whole lot of trouble with mishandling, unintended discharges (though some idiot using 'Mexican carry' recently killed himself).

There have not even been very many permit revocations for cause (but it is not zero).

Virginia had a bad history before shall issue with judges refusing permits based on training, so the training requirements are placed in the law to stop them from refusing under 'shall issue.'

The more liberal counties often had NO permits issued to anyone, while the more conservative (and often rural counties) issued.

So far the 'blood in the streets' predictions have been wrong, and at least a few newspapers have admitted that.

Getting some good training (I went to Gunsite even though I had a lot of Bullseye experience) is good, but using training as a way to restrict access to concealed carry is not needed.

It is just one more way to drive up the cost and limit permits.

[aarondhgraham]

A local NRA certified trainer offers a 1-hour individualized training session at a discounted price to any person who takes his CWL course and then obtains their CWL.

This is not only responsible (I need a better word here) mentoring,,,
But a great promotional device for his business.

Aarond

[TailGator]

How do we feel about requiring a 40 hour course for someone who is facing an immediate threat? They could be dead in the time it takes to get 40 hours of classroom training. Forty hours is a work week. Should effective self defense only be available to those who can afford to take a week off for training? Or should it take several weekends? What about the expense of a course that long?

I agree that training is very valuable, but I don't want to make effective self defense into a privilege of the elite. That is my reason for opposing extensive mandatory training.

The course I took, although a single day, was better than that described by the OP, however. It is possible to cover at least the basics of safe firearm handling in a one-day course. It is up to the student to respond to what s/he is taught, too.

[zincwarrior]

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

Everytime I have voiced that opinion I have been met with hostility from my fellow gun owners.

I agree. In Texas the standard is somewhat more intensive with firing at 3 distances from a few feet to 25 yards. But yes I remember granny getting out there with a 44 mag waiving it about and some other similar events at the range-finding out they were coming in the for CHL class.

[barstoolguru]

I went and took my class there was a woman in there and out of 50 shots she barely keeps them on the target and she passed. Wow did I feel good knowing she has a right to carry a gun.(sarcasm)

“We Americans have a right to carry a gun no matter who it hurts or kills because it doesn’t affect us in most cases.” No background checks and open carry breeds trouble… the past has taught us this.

And I love this one: “it should be free, why should I have to pay for the right to carry.” I guess the tax payer should shoulder the burden….”Ooo wait that’s me”… “Well it’s cheaper for me if everyone pays for my rights because it is in the constitution.” Great idea and you can help everyone by help paying for their car registration and other programs that someone else uses but you don’t.

Am I for more forced training, NO that is up to the individual to proficient but stronger testing at the time of testing would be a good thing

[Ronbert]

Right but when one of these "drivers" kills someone you do not see other meth-heads & cell phone users making excuses for the negligent killer like you do when it happens with a gun.

Because it's so "normal" it's not even reported much. We accept that impaired, distracted, foolish and untrained people are driving and killing other people in much, much larger numbers than gun accidents.

The real risk is on the roads. How many people do you know who've died or been injured from unsafe CCW permit holder gun handling? How many have been in car crashes?

Why work on a low-level problem when your life is in danger every day from the other? Sure, a perfect world would have excellent gun handling by well trained folks whose rights were never infringed by making training mandatory but unavailable but...... in the real world you have to make tradeoffs.

I'm not willing to make training mandatory and place that in the hands of people who will just make it the tool for denial of gun rights (See Chicago or DC for examples)

[Catchabullet]

when places sell guns, they should offer introductory classes... would eliminate a lot of error. my range offers introductory classes for 50$. but the CCW is not meant for basic training... just to teach LAWS and to prove you can properly handle a firearm. then again, any good instructor will always, always go over safety (ours do).

[zincwarrior]

I don't think so. I think you should already be proficient with the weapon before handling the class. The CCW class is more about the laws and making sure you can at least handle a weapon with minimum proficiency. There are other classes for learning how to handle the weapon itself (which should be taken first). That's my 2 cents on it.

Thats fine. Make basic pistol knowledge and proficiency an increased requirement for obtaining the license. Training not required but proficiency is.
Add to the test:
1. basic safety rules (written and at range)
2. basic weapon proficiency (loading/unloading, handling and operation).

[WVsig]

Virginia has very little training required.

The state hunter safety class is allowed.

Wrong on the facts. VA requires a class. ZERO training is required. You can do an oline or video course and I personally do not consider that training.

[kraigwy]

Am I for more forced training, NO that is up to the individual to proficient but stronger testing at the time of testing would be a good thing

OK, what type of test, who conducts it, what's the standards? How much to take the test?

I can design a test a 99 year old grandma on life support can pass, or I can design a test that Jeff Cooper couldn't pass. Depends on what you are tying to accomplish. If I want anyone to carry, I'll design a test toward that goal, or if I want to get rid of guns, I can design a test for that.

Again, who's gonna design the test, and what is their motive?

As to testing it self: What does it tell you, that a guy can shoot a gun always, or that he can shoot a gun at the time of the test?

Shooting isn't like riding a bicycle. You can't take off the training wheels, show your parents you can ride a two wheeler and then you're set for life.

Shooting is a diminishing art. You have to keep up with it or its gone. I shoot a min of 200 rounds a week, and sometimes I don't think that is enough.

Mandatory training and/or testing accomplishes nothing. There is no stats showing where places with mandatory training/testing has made any one safer.

Wyoming is one of the safest places in the country. You don't even need a permit to carry, let alone training.

[WVsig]

Because it's so "normal" it's not even reported much. We accept that impaired, distracted, foolish and untrained people are driving and killing other people in much, much larger numbers than gun accidents.

The real risk is on the roads. How many people do you know who've died or been injured from unsafe CCW permit holder gun handling? How many have been in car crashes?

Why work on a low-level problem when your life is in danger every day from the other? Sure, a perfect world would have excellent gun handling by well trained folks whose rights were never infringed by making training mandatory but unavailable but...... in the real world you have to make tradeoffs.

I'm not willing to make training mandatory and place that in the hands of people who will just make it the tool for denial of gun rights (See Chicago or DC for examples)

That is because there are more people driving cars than carrying guns. You cannot look at it interms of raw numbers. As Twain use to say "There are lies Damn lies and then statistics.

[barstoolguru]

quote:Wyoming is one of the safest places in the country. You don't even need a permit to carry, let alone training.

Here is a death rate chart and Wyoming in amongst the highest at 15.5 per 100,000
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=113&cat=2

Now on to the other question, if grandma wants to carry she need to pass a general firearms test and I am sure who ever put together a hunting classes can come up with a test for carrying a hand gun. it’s funny we put 8 hours into training someone to carry a gun in the woods but 30 minutes testing them on proficiency of a handgun and 7 ½ hours of law.

How would the people like if cops only had 30 minutes of gun training to get on the police force? I did not say to make the test so difficult that it leaves out the vast migratory but I am sure that someone like that NRA can come up with a reasonable test.

I am glad you get to shoot 200 rounds a week and there are some that shoot once a year but by law both of you are equal. No one want to make the system top heavy but some of us would like to know that the bimbo that barely keep her shots on a standard target is not going to be pointing the gun in my direction when she gets into a pinch. Stats tell us that 7% of all bullets (police included) hit their intended targets and this bimbo that got her licenses would be in the less than 1% category

[kraigwy]

Barstool, I think you are missing the major contention in my post.

That being that Mandantory training/testing doesn't work, it accomplishes NOTHING.

I was a range officer in most of my 20 years with the Anchorage Police Dept. We had mandantory training and testing, on the whole, COPS CANT SHOOT. Not just APD, but cops in general. Ask any LE range officer.

The same with the military: Most my time in the National Guard was in charge of training. I ran the AK NG Marksmanship Training, where I was overall incharge of training the AN NG to shoot. Same thing, on the average the military can't shoot. And don't say its the NG. On the whole NG shooters are better then the Regular Military simply because the NG makes it easier for individuals to train on their own.

When you institute mandantory training/testing, it has to mean the government sets the standards. We all know what that's like. Governments are more about control then training and that's what you'll end up with, more control on our right to carry.

If one screws up, do to neglect or what ever, fine, punish them. But you don't punish the masses because some one screws up.

I think the majority of us (gun owners) want less government control then more.

by law both of you are equal

No sir, not by law, but by God we are equal. The law (constitution) only protects our God given rights. When government gets involved, those God given rights are restricted.

[barstoolguru]

The masses take a beating. I respect your time and training, I for one know it is hard to train people and break habits. One thing is that time has shown us that you can't trust people to do the right thing and that leaves a hole for the government to step in.

Gun owner can be a reckless bunch and it can be difficult to pinpoint the owner of a bullet. The vast majority of CC people is good people and intends to do no harm but even the best intentions can stray and someone gets hurt. Needless to say that training reduces the chances of a bad shooting.

So why not incorporate a small training/ refresher course and tag it to a permit. 4 hours of someone’s day is well worth a life that it might save. Some people don't need it and see it as a burden but I say if you want to cc then shut up and take the training /refresher course.

I for one have seen many people stand in front of me and say I know all about guns and when you hand them one they scare the heck out of you so why should I/we take someone’s word that they know how to handle a gun? it might be constitutional right to own a gun but it is also a constitutional right for peace and the pursuit of happiness and when someone is reckless that infringes on my rights too. Yea, I know sue but you can’t get blood out of a rock!

Edit: you talk about not wanting the government to intervene but isn’t the constitution a government intervention that gives us the right to bear arms? What you really meant to say is you want selective government intervention… and I believe we have that already we just need to make it work like it suppose to

[kraigwy]

Again Sir,

I'm not saying there is any thing wrong with training. I'm saying government mandatory training isn't the answer. You say give up 4 hours of your time to get a permit isn't that much to ask. But 4 hours every 5 years (most CC permits I know of are good for 5 years) accomplishes nothing.

You asked that the citizen should adhere to the same standards ad LE officers, as to mandatory training. But, LE officers are paid to train on company time, they are given the ammo.

Are you willing to use tax dollars (in training and ammo) so private citizens can excesses their right and then like cops, they still can't shoot?

[TailGator]

when places sell guns, they should offer introductory classes

Many - perhaps most - do offer them. And plenty of people decline to take them. The question is, should they and can they make them mandatory. Most people on gun forums are going to say no, but it would be interesting to know how many first-time buyers would say yes to the theory but no in practice. That seems to me to be the real problem.

[m&p45acp10+1]

I have in my day seen too many people who took a CHL class thinking that it was training, that had little or no experience with firing handguns. Strangely I can not think of any of them that did not pass the shooting portion of the test.

I agree that a basic handgun safty class should be taken before a person takes the CHL class.

[brickeyee]

Wrong on the facts. VA requires a class. ZERO training is required.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-308

G. The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence, nor shall any proof of demonstrated competence expire:

1. Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;

2. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;

3. Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;

4. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;

5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;

6. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;

7. Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;

8. Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or

9. Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.

I guess it all depends on how you want to define "training."

Or maybe you where born with the ability to "demonstrated competence."

[WVsig]

VA does not require any live firing to complete the requirements for a CHP. Both online and in class safety courses which do not require you to even hold a gun satisfy the "training" requirement to obtain a VA permit.

Gander Mountain used to offer the course and those who took it there never saw a range and where eligible for their VA permit. I do not consider listening to an instructor, logging into the internet and reading a book training when it comes to a handgun.

[Hunter Rose]

>you talk about not wanting the government to intervene but isn’t the constitution a government intervention that gives us the right to bear arms?<

BUZZZZZ!!!!!! Wrong answer.

The Constitution is a set of rules for government to follow. The Bill of Rights doesn't GIVE us anything: it sets out a list of rights granted all humans by their Creator, and specifies that the government isn't allowed to touch them.

Now... making a training requirement opens the door for antigun politicians to raise the bar so high that nobody can meet it. Defacto ban on CCW.

[WVsig]

Which is a logical fallacy.....

[Hunter Rose]

DINGDINGDING! We have a winnah!

[WVsig]

DINGDINGDING! We have a winnah!

You do realize I am stating that you are attempting to prove your point using a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope.