I'm kind of curious about all these folks carrying concealed handguns these days. It seems like more and more states have made it easier for people to (legally) carry deadly weapons. Quite often there is little or no training required to obtain a "license", and hardly ever any follow up "re-qualification" to keep carrying. (Please mind that I'm purposefuly trying to avoid the general issue of if any government has any business at all telling people that they can or can't (and how) defend themselves, make them get a "permit", or etc.) My quiery is: what do you consider a "competent level of ability". Do any of you duly armed citizens have any "tactical" training, how often you "re-train", do you even think about it, etc? By this, I mean are most folks just going down to the local range and fire a box of ammo at a stationary bullseye target every 3 or 4 months, and say, "yup, now I'm ready"? Stay safe.
Armed and untrained
- Thread starter nwgunman
- Start date
lonegunman
New member
No training is necessary to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms.
Jurisdictions which try to require "training" are attempting to limit rights of the individual. I would be opposed to any requirement for state approved training.
I have been a shooter since about age 5, yet have never had any formal training on the matter. I have read a lot on my own, and practiced a lot on my own. I really dont feel I need any training to be more competent with my weapons than about 99% of the LEO's out there.
Jurisdictions which try to require "training" are attempting to limit rights of the individual. I would be opposed to any requirement for state approved training.
I have been a shooter since about age 5, yet have never had any formal training on the matter. I have read a lot on my own, and practiced a lot on my own. I really dont feel I need any training to be more competent with my weapons than about 99% of the LEO's out there.
slickpuppy
New member
sounds like a question from an hci mole.
I've looked at both sides of this coin, and I agree with lonegunman.
The fewer requirements the better. My wife and I have not had formal training, but we shoot a lot and are comfortable with our skill level. My mother, who also has a permit, shoots once a year, and she scares me. She still has as much right to self-protection as anyone else.
I've been shooting IDPA (or ISPC) competitions this year. Going through a course double-tapping torso sized targets for time and acuracy. I have learned that A) my acuracy is acceptable, B) there is a reason for a beveled mag well, C)walking-crouching-ducking while shooting is not easy, and D) this has little to do with shooting at a human or being shot at. It's good practice, and it's fun, but it's not what I would call formal training. That said, I'm comfortable with my current skill level, although I would like to improve. What someone else thinks of my skill level has no bearing on my RKBA.
Your last question is valid, but your asking the wrong crowd. Certainly there are lots of gun owners who shoot once every year or three, but I don't think many of them visit here or carry in public.
Except my mom. And she hasn't shot at anybody in a couple of years.
The fewer requirements the better. My wife and I have not had formal training, but we shoot a lot and are comfortable with our skill level. My mother, who also has a permit, shoots once a year, and she scares me. She still has as much right to self-protection as anyone else.
I've been shooting IDPA (or ISPC) competitions this year. Going through a course double-tapping torso sized targets for time and acuracy. I have learned that A) my acuracy is acceptable, B) there is a reason for a beveled mag well, C)walking-crouching-ducking while shooting is not easy, and D) this has little to do with shooting at a human or being shot at. It's good practice, and it's fun, but it's not what I would call formal training. That said, I'm comfortable with my current skill level, although I would like to improve. What someone else thinks of my skill level has no bearing on my RKBA.
Your last question is valid, but your asking the wrong crowd. Certainly there are lots of gun owners who shoot once every year or three, but I don't think many of them visit here or carry in public.
Except my mom. And she hasn't shot at anybody in a couple of years.
I think you'll find that the average CCW-holder, who actually does pack regularly, tends to be a bit more of an enthusiast than the non-CCW'd citizen, or the LEO who wouldn't carry if it were not part of the job, thereby making them more inclined to train and/or practice than the average joe.
But the reality of it is, in relationship to safety, it's really not a big deal how much training someone has. Firearms accidents are incredibly low, they're almost a statistical non-event. Would more (or any, for that matter) quality training make the average pistol packin mama or papa any safer? Sure, of course it would, but the fact is, they're not that unsafe to begin with, at least not in any meaningful way. If having and packing guns w/o any training made someone a walking accident factory, we'd see the accident stats rise. That's not happening, even as gun ownership and CCW is increasing.
I, personally, think that cars are faaaar more dangerous than guns. Think about this the next time you're out driving: the only reason you are going to be alive when this next car passes you going the other direction at 60, is because you are trusting that person, a total stranger, to actively be paying attention to keeping their vehicle on their side of that strip of paint. The yahoo twitches his arms at the right moment and you're all street pizza. The difference is, the gun isn't going to whack anybody by itself, but if they stop actively keeping their car from plowing into things, it will. Yet we seem to able to get along with driving every day...even though there is literally no end to the number of yahoo's on the road at any given hour.
I teach basic firearms safety and handgun defense courses myself, so I obviously think basic training is a great idea; but people ultimately need to be responsible enough, in a general life-style kind of way, to handle themselves without assistance or training for everything in their life that has the potential for accidents.
Basic gun safety is not rocket science. It takes a real mensa candidate to have a serious firearms accident. I'm not talking about the scary twice in a lifetime ND into the cellar floor, but something with a real consequence. Sure it happens, with 80 million gun owners in the US, somewhere someone is going to screw the pooch. But that's life on earth. You can't legislate safety on the level of individual responsibility, nature is just far too complicated to control like that.
I'd love to see basic firearms safety taught K-12! That's a great place to get the training in where it'll do the most good (for the children!) as far as accident prevention goes, and causes no sticky constitutional problems.
- Gabe
But the reality of it is, in relationship to safety, it's really not a big deal how much training someone has. Firearms accidents are incredibly low, they're almost a statistical non-event. Would more (or any, for that matter) quality training make the average pistol packin mama or papa any safer? Sure, of course it would, but the fact is, they're not that unsafe to begin with, at least not in any meaningful way. If having and packing guns w/o any training made someone a walking accident factory, we'd see the accident stats rise. That's not happening, even as gun ownership and CCW is increasing.
I, personally, think that cars are faaaar more dangerous than guns. Think about this the next time you're out driving: the only reason you are going to be alive when this next car passes you going the other direction at 60, is because you are trusting that person, a total stranger, to actively be paying attention to keeping their vehicle on their side of that strip of paint. The yahoo twitches his arms at the right moment and you're all street pizza. The difference is, the gun isn't going to whack anybody by itself, but if they stop actively keeping their car from plowing into things, it will. Yet we seem to able to get along with driving every day...even though there is literally no end to the number of yahoo's on the road at any given hour.
I teach basic firearms safety and handgun defense courses myself, so I obviously think basic training is a great idea; but people ultimately need to be responsible enough, in a general life-style kind of way, to handle themselves without assistance or training for everything in their life that has the potential for accidents.
Basic gun safety is not rocket science. It takes a real mensa candidate to have a serious firearms accident. I'm not talking about the scary twice in a lifetime ND into the cellar floor, but something with a real consequence. Sure it happens, with 80 million gun owners in the US, somewhere someone is going to screw the pooch. But that's life on earth. You can't legislate safety on the level of individual responsibility, nature is just far too complicated to control like that.
I'd love to see basic firearms safety taught K-12! That's a great place to get the training in where it'll do the most good (for the children!) as far as accident prevention goes, and causes no sticky constitutional problems.
- Gabe
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
Here in Indiana, you can get a license based on criminal history. It's up to you to practice. I do think that's why many states that require training don't honor our license.
$25 dollars/4 years to carry,no tests no problem.I've had no formal defensive training here.I've been pulled on,only to counter pull legally and I scared the perp into dropping the stolen gun and running."Why I shoulda dropped the PUNK".and you can bet he didn't have a permit!You have the right to bare arms,use it!SAFE-SHOOTING!
Awhile back, I was at a tactical handgun shooting match with about 30 other CCW holders in attendance. While the skill levels were all over the board, most of the shooters were safe in every way and the ROs were very alert so there was no danger at the match.
Nonetheless, there was one shooter present who (IMHO) should not have been carrying a deadly weapon. The gun she was carrying was too big for her hands and the caliber had too much recoil for her. She had no muzzle control whatsoever. In addition she seemed unfamiliar with the basic features of her gun and could not unload it in a safe manner.
The worst part was, though, that she honestly believed that the level of training she had already received (e.g. no formal training at all and durn little informal training) was completely sufficient. She was wrong.
I don't want "her" to be me. So I train ...
A competent level of ability would be a 95% chance of any single shot hitting COM at distances up to 15 yards, from standing, kneeling, prone, or moving positions, under various adverse conditions (including single hand shots in all those positions). If you have 95% accuracy for each individual shot, your chances of a deciding hit within two shots reaches near 100%.
It's not terribly hard to get 95% from 10 yards while standing in a comfy stance in front of an unmoving target. It's harder to manage it while crouched or running, without corrective lenses on, or when surprised by the location and/or threat level of the target.
I have a single beginner/intermediate level class under my belt. The class did wonders for me, but by itself it's nowhere near enough.
I've made a conscious effort this summer to show up for the local tactical matches. I've learned a lot through them, but by themselves they aren't enough. (Though let me add, I think they do help me keep what the class gave me.)
I've tried to get to the range once a week, but it's more like every other week. I shoot off between 50 to 100 rounds when I go. I start with 10 rounds "stand at the line and shoot." Then I'll do some one-handeds, some kneeling, some crouched, some moving drills. I'll take off my corrective lenses (and keep my safety goggles on) and practice all of the above minus good eyes.
If my buddy is with me, we'll play a game of "surprises," where the shooter turns away from the range behind a barrier while the non-shooter arranges target stands to simulate various scenarios. When non-shooter is done, shooter peers around the barrier, quickly assesses the situation, and does what is necessary. It's a fun game, but it's also serious training.
Frankly, the more I practice this stuff, the more certain I am that I never want to have to do it for real. It's hard and it's frightening to think about. But the idea of being helpless is scarier...
pax
Nonetheless, there was one shooter present who (IMHO) should not have been carrying a deadly weapon. The gun she was carrying was too big for her hands and the caliber had too much recoil for her. She had no muzzle control whatsoever. In addition she seemed unfamiliar with the basic features of her gun and could not unload it in a safe manner.
The worst part was, though, that she honestly believed that the level of training she had already received (e.g. no formal training at all and durn little informal training) was completely sufficient. She was wrong.
I don't want "her" to be me. So I train ...
A competent level of ability would be a 95% chance of any single shot hitting COM at distances up to 15 yards, from standing, kneeling, prone, or moving positions, under various adverse conditions (including single hand shots in all those positions). If you have 95% accuracy for each individual shot, your chances of a deciding hit within two shots reaches near 100%.
It's not terribly hard to get 95% from 10 yards while standing in a comfy stance in front of an unmoving target. It's harder to manage it while crouched or running, without corrective lenses on, or when surprised by the location and/or threat level of the target.
I have a single beginner/intermediate level class under my belt. The class did wonders for me, but by itself it's nowhere near enough.
I've made a conscious effort this summer to show up for the local tactical matches. I've learned a lot through them, but by themselves they aren't enough. (Though let me add, I think they do help me keep what the class gave me.)
I've tried to get to the range once a week, but it's more like every other week. I shoot off between 50 to 100 rounds when I go. I start with 10 rounds "stand at the line and shoot." Then I'll do some one-handeds, some kneeling, some crouched, some moving drills. I'll take off my corrective lenses (and keep my safety goggles on) and practice all of the above minus good eyes.
If my buddy is with me, we'll play a game of "surprises," where the shooter turns away from the range behind a barrier while the non-shooter arranges target stands to simulate various scenarios. When non-shooter is done, shooter peers around the barrier, quickly assesses the situation, and does what is necessary. It's a fun game, but it's also serious training.
Frankly, the more I practice this stuff, the more certain I am that I never want to have to do it for real. It's hard and it's frightening to think about. But the idea of being helpless is scarier...
pax
I agree with the trend of the posts above. As much training as possible is good, but until they retest your driving skills every time you renew the license I don't think there's much of an argument for requiring it.
The CCW here in Oklahoma requires a one-day course, half lecture on usage, safety, and law, and half on the range. I also took the introductory course at the Chapman Acadmey in Missouri, which was excellent. But not everyone can afford the time or money involved. Poor people need to defend themselves too.
The CCW here in Oklahoma requires a one-day course, half lecture on usage, safety, and law, and half on the range. I also took the introductory course at the Chapman Acadmey in Missouri, which was excellent. But not everyone can afford the time or money involved. Poor people need to defend themselves too.
Herr Walther
New member
This may not be a justified concern, but I worry about if the CCW holder has had any material presented to him/her about the justification in the use of deadly force, learning to be aware of situations that can lead to this, and what to do to avoid it in the first place.
I don't have any problems with the physical aspect of learning to use a handgun, it's more what is going on between this persons ears that concerns me.
I don't have any problems with the physical aspect of learning to use a handgun, it's more what is going on between this persons ears that concerns me.
LoneStranger
New member
This is why we a shooters should at all times when the Anti-Rights people start crying about Safety point out that Public Safety Ranges should at all times be available to the all people.
After all if you don't give people the opportunity to safely practice firearms use you can't complain if they are not acting safely.
This is why efforts at firearms education should always be strongly supported.
When the Anti's start talking point out the analogy of the kitchen and children. The kitchen is one of the most dangerous places in the home for children. But most parents quickly determine that teaching their children about the hazards in the kitchen is the only way to keep them safe in the kitchen. Since you can't keep kids out of the kitchen you have to teach them of the hazards or they will injure or kill themselves or others. Seems like the same should apply to firearms.
After all if you don't give people the opportunity to safely practice firearms use you can't complain if they are not acting safely.
This is why efforts at firearms education should always be strongly supported.
When the Anti's start talking point out the analogy of the kitchen and children. The kitchen is one of the most dangerous places in the home for children. But most parents quickly determine that teaching their children about the hazards in the kitchen is the only way to keep them safe in the kitchen. Since you can't keep kids out of the kitchen you have to teach them of the hazards or they will injure or kill themselves or others. Seems like the same should apply to firearms.
NWGunman,
I shall respond to your question and -- for now -- eliminate any RKBA comments, except to indicate that the Second Amendment does not specify training, safety, or proficiency standards.
With twenty years as a military officer (including combat) plus weekly marksmanship practice with a variety of handguns, I feel quite proficient and very safe for CCW. In addition, at age 55 (with an excellent professional background, outstanding formal education, and so forth), I believe my judgment is excellent. In combination, prudent judgment and honed firearms skills make me extremely safe when I carry concealed.
In fact -- and this comment is NOT disrespectful of LEOs -- I suggest the average police officer (younger, with less life experience, less education, less marksmanship training and continuous practice, and frequently not concerned with firearms proficiency or even maintenance) poses a greater hazard than I.
It is interesting that your initial inquiry does not include LEO, which implies CCW holders are intrinsically more dangerous and less skilled than police personnel. I rather doubt -- in aggregate -- that is accurate.
I shall respond to your question and -- for now -- eliminate any RKBA comments, except to indicate that the Second Amendment does not specify training, safety, or proficiency standards.
With twenty years as a military officer (including combat) plus weekly marksmanship practice with a variety of handguns, I feel quite proficient and very safe for CCW. In addition, at age 55 (with an excellent professional background, outstanding formal education, and so forth), I believe my judgment is excellent. In combination, prudent judgment and honed firearms skills make me extremely safe when I carry concealed.
In fact -- and this comment is NOT disrespectful of LEOs -- I suggest the average police officer (younger, with less life experience, less education, less marksmanship training and continuous practice, and frequently not concerned with firearms proficiency or even maintenance) poses a greater hazard than I.
It is interesting that your initial inquiry does not include LEO, which implies CCW holders are intrinsically more dangerous and less skilled than police personnel. I rather doubt -- in aggregate -- that is accurate.
Requiring training is a good idea. A untrained person with a gun is a liiability to themselves and society. Thier CCW coarse should require a minimal level of skill. Lets not take our right to keep and bear arms to a stupid level. If we do we will lose that right entirely because of some stupid untrained person shooting a hole in the roof of wall mart.
PAT
PAT
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
"A untrained person with a gun is a liiability to themselves and society"
What a load of horse ****! I can gaurantee you that the majority of civillian lives saved by the use of a weapon are by people with no formal training at all.
"take our right to keep and bear arms to a stupid level"
Taking a right to a level is stupid.
"If we do we will lose that right entirely because of some stupid untrained person shooting a hole in the roof of wall mart."
That hasn't happened with plethora of law enforcement negligent discharges and outright misses while in a gunfight.
What a load of horse ****! I can gaurantee you that the majority of civillian lives saved by the use of a weapon are by people with no formal training at all.
"take our right to keep and bear arms to a stupid level"
Taking a right to a level is stupid.
"If we do we will lose that right entirely because of some stupid untrained person shooting a hole in the roof of wall mart."
That hasn't happened with plethora of law enforcement negligent discharges and outright misses while in a gunfight.
Coltdriver
New member
Why attempt to address a problem that does not exist?
How many concealed carrying citizens killed an innocent person today? Last Week? Last Month? Last year?
I am offended at anybodys infringement of my constitutionally stated right to keep and bear arms.
Should the press be licensed? Should the press be forbidden from operating withing 200 yards of a school?
Should I have to fill out a form to qualify as being immune to unreasonable search and siezure.
What exactly are you concerned about?
How many concealed carrying citizens killed an innocent person today? Last Week? Last Month? Last year?
I am offended at anybodys infringement of my constitutionally stated right to keep and bear arms.
Should the press be licensed? Should the press be forbidden from operating withing 200 yards of a school?
Should I have to fill out a form to qualify as being immune to unreasonable search and siezure.
What exactly are you concerned about?
I am not sure just sticking a gun in your pocket with the attitude that you have the right to blow away anyone you want is going to promote the interests of the gun community. I favor a good CCW system (which we are denied in this state) but CCW with no training makes no more sense than driving a car with no training.
Sure, many CCW people are gun people and probably better trained and more knowlegeable than most LEOs. But what about the ones who are not? What about the "rights" nut who thinks his license grants him the right to kill people (maybe you). What about the guy who spots a holdup in a crowded restaurant and decides to play hero by spraying the place and putting a .40 Corbon through your wife? Tell her about his rights.
Frankly, having read this stuff over and over again, I am not sure I want to be anywhere around some of the trigger happy jerks who sound off here.
And if you think I am working for HCI, you are so nuts you shouldn't even have a gun.
Jim
Sure, many CCW people are gun people and probably better trained and more knowlegeable than most LEOs. But what about the ones who are not? What about the "rights" nut who thinks his license grants him the right to kill people (maybe you). What about the guy who spots a holdup in a crowded restaurant and decides to play hero by spraying the place and putting a .40 Corbon through your wife? Tell her about his rights.
Frankly, having read this stuff over and over again, I am not sure I want to be anywhere around some of the trigger happy jerks who sound off here.
And if you think I am working for HCI, you are so nuts you shouldn't even have a gun.
Jim
The automobile is a great analogy. I find myself behind people who aren't paying attention several times a day. You can't effect behavior changes in people who don't care.
The first course I ever took was a basic pistol course, and I took it after I got my CCL. On one end of scale was a guy who thought that all the safety information was crap "It's unloaded, don't worry." You know the type. He obeyed the safety rules for the class because he didn't want to be kicked out, but we all knew he wouldn't be so careful afterward. On the other end of the scale was me. I was shooting as well as some of the instructors, showed good safety and had the instructors teaching me advanced techniques on the first class.
My point is not to toot my own horn, but to show that the dangerous student was dangerous before he came in and still dangerous after he left. I was safe when I came in and safe when I left.
Why subject perfectly safe and sane people to safety courses who don't need it?
The first course I ever took was a basic pistol course, and I took it after I got my CCL. On one end of scale was a guy who thought that all the safety information was crap "It's unloaded, don't worry." You know the type. He obeyed the safety rules for the class because he didn't want to be kicked out, but we all knew he wouldn't be so careful afterward. On the other end of the scale was me. I was shooting as well as some of the instructors, showed good safety and had the instructors teaching me advanced techniques on the first class.
My point is not to toot my own horn, but to show that the dangerous student was dangerous before he came in and still dangerous after he left. I was safe when I came in and safe when I left.
Why subject perfectly safe and sane people to safety courses who don't need it?
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
Which trigger happy happy jerks are referring to?
I see more jerks on the politically correct gun ownership crowd. No removal of magazine safeties, yes on conversions of 3 screw Rugers, training for the exercising of a right, etc. It's either for the children, some imaginary liability bull **** with no basis in fact, or some stereotypical belief gun owner behavior.
I see more jerks on the politically correct gun ownership crowd. No removal of magazine safeties, yes on conversions of 3 screw Rugers, training for the exercising of a right, etc. It's either for the children, some imaginary liability bull **** with no basis in fact, or some stereotypical belief gun owner behavior.