[No] Training before you carry

[9x45]

Reality is if you CCW and have no training at all, especially close quarter stuff, odds are your gun will be used against you. The qualification for my county is pathetic. 10 rounds at 5 yards on a B27 target. I have witnessed requals where CCW holders couldn't pass. All you have to do is put 10 holes anywhere in the entire target. If you are going to carry a gun, it would be wise to practice live fire draws from concealment at 3 yards. Everyone thinks they can do it, but their practice is to shoot at a box target from a bench at an indoor range, 50 rounds a year......

 

[racnsoonr]

I think that they should have a score minimum. If they can't take the little pressure from shooting for score in front of other people, then they likely won't be able to defend themselves in front of a bad guy

 

[dennishoddy]

I had a guy in my CC course that sprayed bullets all over the target and missed it completely several times. I shot my 25 pretty quick, and watched him. He was shutting his eyes at the first shot and kept them shut while dumping his mag.
He needed some training, but he passed because he exhibited range safety and followed the instructors rules.
If I was running away and he told me to stop or he would shoot. I'd slow down to a walk with confidence. :triniti:

 

[Mark Hudson]

You can rank me in the new gun owner category. 51 years old, grew up with guns, stopped owning / handling in my mid twenties.

In the last two months have purchased 2 handguns and one AR. I signed up for training before I ever bought the first handgun. My ccw class was 12 hours but not any real handling skills. I signed up for private training, 2 hours a month and have been spending 2 days a week at the range, and 2-3 nights a week practicing draws, presentations, and moving.

I shot my first uspsa match and basically walked the entire way and drew at a snails pace to make sure I was safe and my fellow shooters were safe.

I learned a lot. Now I am practicing 5 nights a week and still doing my other training.

I have seen vast improvement in my target acquisition and accuracy.

Not that any of this means anything except to say I for one believe if owning a gun is a right, then the responsibility to be well qualified to use it comes along with the right.

I have a long way to go, but am having a crap ton of fun doing this. Of course now I want to shoot 3 gun....

 

[runawaygun762]

I think there are two potentially conflicting Constitutional issues here: the Second Amendment and the requirement to secure the general welfare. On private property, you should be able to own and use whatever floats your boat. In the public eye, however, things change. If a retard with a gun shoots my wife or kids in the failed attempt to stop a shoplifter, I'm not going to say "Well, the Second Amendment trumps their safety. Oh well".

Perhaps I'm an elitist douchebag, but I think the ability to carry a gun in the public eye is a privilege, not a right, and I think the qualifications, both on the range and demonstrating in writing an understanding of the laws that cover use of force, should be held to a very high standard because of the inherent danger.

 

[dennishoddy]

You can rank me in the new gun owner category. 51 years old, grew up with guns, stopped owning / handling in my mid twenties.

In the last two months have purchased 2 handguns and one AR. I signed up for training before I ever bought the first handgun. My ccw class was 12 hours but not any real handling skills. I signed up for private training, 2 hours a month and have been spending 2 days a week at the range, and 2-3 nights a week practicing draws, presentations, and moving.

I shot my first uspsa match and basically walked the entire way and drew at a snails pace to make sure I was safe and my fellow shooters were safe.

I learned a lot. Now I am practicing 5 nights a week and still doing my other training.

I have seen vast improvement in my target acquisition and accuracy.

Not that any of this means anything except to say I for one believe if owning a gun is a right, then the responsibility to be well qualified to use it comes along with the right.

I have a long way to go, but am having a crap ton of fun doing this. Of course now I want to shoot 3 gun....

And that's the way it should be. The individual gun owner should know that there are consequences with gun ownership, and take the initiative to get themselves familiar and trained with guns. The government shouldn't force it.
I fight all the time with folks that buy a gun, which is their right, get a mag full of rounds and stick it in their purse or under the seat of their car, some never firing it.
True story: had a guy that has been a long time friend get a handgun for protection. He hasn't got his CC class, but has been carrying it in his vehicle with the mag loaded but separate from the gun. He called tonight and wanted to bring it by to have it disassembled and find out why it won't chamber a HP.
After cleaning the cosmoline or whatever grease they use now it worked fine. An offer to take it to the range this week so he could shoot it wasn't met with much enthusiasm. He is content knowing he has one. Lubed it up for him and he went down the road.
He has protection now in his mind and is content. This happened tonight.

 

[bmprigge]

I have to agree with some of the others here. While I firmly believe in our Second Amendment rights, carrying in public is a different animal. If you want to be able to carry around a deadly weapon, you should at least be able to demonstrate that you can reasonably hit what you're aiming at.

 

[MarkCh]

The Constitution says the right of the people to "keep and bear" arms. To me, "keep" means own. "Bear" means carry. Once you require certain shooting standards to exercise a constitutional right, whoever sets the standards can easily make passing such a test more and more difficult until nobody could qualify. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[bmprigge]

MarkCh, I totally agree but I also think that those who were apt to carry a firearm when the Bill of Rights was written were responsible enough to know how to shoot their guns. You can say that, because their ability to shoot the common flintlock pistols required a bit more time and effort between shots, they must have taken steps to ensure proficiency. I hate that we have to even discuss this because of how irresponsible some people are, but unfortunately we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator, and that means that I think we should enact severely limited requirements for accuracy and proficiency testing. Hell, if you're going to legislate it, make it so damn specific there's no way to misread or change it. Something like this:

"To be eligible to receive a free constitutional carry card, a citizen of the United States must demonstrate their proficiency in loading and unloading their weapon, operate the safeties (if equipped), and place at least 35 of 50 shots fired from 7 yards on a paper 11" wide by 17" tall. No further restrictions may be placed on this constitutionally guaranteed right."

 

[michaelclm]

Most people wouldn't know real violence until it put them on the other side of the grass. Does that disqualify them from carrying lethal force tools for self defense? No. Just like not being trained to employ them shouldn't disqualify them either. Neither any of you nor I has the right to infringe on another person's natural right to self defense in the method of his choosing. That's the price we pay for dangerous liberty. If the man injures someone, he pays the price to society. Again, that risk is the price we pay for our liberty. I would hazard that most who beat the "training before you can do...." drum are minimally trained themselves. By minimally, I mean they took a handgun licensing class (You know, the one where you fired 50 rounds to prove you could do it without shooting me or the people on your left and right?) at the least or maybe another 16-32 hours of training at the most. Guess what they DO have, though? An opinion on what makes their fellow man qualified to carry a gun in public for self defense. But are THEY even "qualified"?

Who trained you? Any asshole can hang a shingle and call himself an Instructor these days. What are his qualifications? What was the curriculum? Who decides what the standard is and which classes do and don't make the cut? Did they train on the ground, with live blades, or to keep or regain control of a gun? Did they train against multiple attackers? Have they ever put sights on another human being and pulled a REAL trigger before? What's the magical cutoff for a first round hit on the A Zone from concealment? At what range? Should that even be a part of the standard? How often must one train to maintain an acceptable level of proficiency? What if you survive the gunfight and you, your spouse, your child, or a bystander bleed out because you don't know f@ck all about controlling external hemorrhage? Slippery on this slope we're on, isn't it?

How much training does it take to survive a lethal force encounter, anyway? When you find out, please let me know. It's okay that most people (the vast majority, really) don't know what real violence is. In fact, that's a GREAT thing! It means we live in a majority safe and peaceful society (which we do, by the way). Your average, walking around meat popsicle also has neither the time or financial budget, nor the inclination to be trained for every possible scenario with which they might be faced, or in every single martial skill imaginable. That's just not realistic. What IS realistic is to study the types of violent encounters which take place most frequently in the places YOU go, and to train for THOSE in as comprehensive and efficient a manner as possible.

I'm not a big open carry fan but I'm not going to begrudge a man his choice of carry simply because I don't choose to practice it myself. All the hard core concealed carry champions usually bleat the same line: If you aren't training on how to retain your weapon, you shouldn't be open carrying. Guess what, professor? If you aren't training to retain your weapon, period, you shouldn't be carrying either!

People have been virtually tickled stupid over "Constitutional Carry" passing the OK House recently. Yeah? Which Constitution does it satisfy? Not mine. What the hell do I know? I'm just another asshole with an opinion.

 

[Scott_S]

I'm of two minds here. I have my pro 2A side and my SDA instructor side. The pro 2A side says "shall not be infringed" as such I think the proposed open carry bill satisfies this. The Instructor side of me says "holy **** 40% of my students will only fire these 50 (approx) rounds this year". With the proposed change to open carry I think the training requirement should be increased for concealed carry. Splitting the legal and firearms training into two days or two 6 hour blocks that can be taken at different times.

 

[Gfercaks33]

I had a conversation with a liberal buddy (different story but I convinced him to go to the range and he loved it) that did get me thinking about this not to long ago. The best thing I could come up with was a basic safety safety class you can take, after you pass the class you are free to do what you want legally. Make the class voluntary but if you don't take the class make doing some stuff an Inconvenience. You don't have the safety class endorsement you have to have a 24 hour delay on buying that gun.

That is just an example I thought of on the spot all of the options he gave did infringe on rights like forcing people to take safety classes or having doctors sign off you are mentally stable, ect. There's probably a better way of handling it but you still have your rights and you life is slightly easier since you showed you are a safe and responsible gun owner.

I feel the class I had to take for my carry license was an absolute joke, I could have passed the test with out any of the rest of the class, also when we shot I got complemented on "great grouping", I'll be honest I almost did mag dumps because I was done there. I kept my shots in the "8" ring and slightly left. I was appalled at some of the questions I heard them ask, seeing them get questions wrong on the test and also seeing their targets.