[HTML1]
Everyone, obviously. But how much firearms training does someone need for effective concealed carry? I reckon thirty seconds. Give them a Smith & Wesson 642 with the following instructions: “Open it this way, put the bullets in here (pointy end forward), close it like this, don’t point it at anyone you don’t want to shoot, put the gun in your pocket or a safe. Don’t shoot anyone unless they are in the process of trying to kill you. When you’re ready to shoot get as close to the bad guy as possible, point the gun at them and pull the trigger. Stop pulling when they stop attacking you. Afterwards call 911, tell them someone’s been shot and STFU. Muzzle tov. [sic]” Here’s the funny thing: pro-training gun rights advocates are in the same camp as the infamous gun grabber known as MikeB302000 . . .
Wisconsin Concealed Carry. The requirements are so lax that Wisconsin went from one of only two states to not allow it to among the top ten most lenient. This will guarantee blowback which will be used by their critics against them.
The real problem is this is not an academic exercise or an argument over the dinner table. Lives are at stake. There will be more incidents of domestic violence against women, there will be more incidents of disgruntled employees going berserk, there will be more trouble in bars. Then the proponents of the legislation will cherry pick stats and manipulate the facts in order to appease their critics and please their followers. And meanwhile, people will have unnecessarily suffered and died.
Oh puh-lease. I reckon CCW training has about as much impact on gun safety as driver’s ed on automobile safety. And guns are a LOT easier to handle without mishap. Besides, CCW training requirements are fundamentally elitist. AND they stand in direct contravention of both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.
I say let everyone carry a gun and Darwin (and the courts) will sort it out. At the end of that learning curve we’d all be better off. Am I wrong?
Am I wrong?….. Probably, I just can’t figure out why. If you’re wrong, so am I.
I think training levels could stand to be a bit higher. I’ve had my CWFL for about six months, I’ve done a LOT of reading, and I’m still not comfortable with my knowledge of the law and the practice that surrounds carrying and possibly using a concealed weapon. My CWFL class was at a gun store, and in retrospect, it was kind of a joke. It sorta scared me how easy it was. I actually had this conversation with a friend a couple weeks ago, and this is what I told him…
I get that higher training standards could lead to 2A limitations, but I’m torn because I honestly did not feel comfortable knowing that the two other guys in my CWFL course thought they had sufficient knowledge to handle the responsibility. I’m pretty sure that the “firearm qualification,” which consisted of shooting a .22 automatic at a 3 yard target a half dozen or so times and not killing anyone in the process, was the first time one of the guys had ever fired a gun. And now, having taken that joke of a class, he’s walking around with a .38 in his pocket (he paid for it that day after class) thinking he is fully prepared to use it if necessary.
Sorry for the rant, but it’s just a little scary to me.
“I’ve done a LOT of reading, and I’m still not comfortable with my knowledge of the law and the practice that surrounds carrying and possibly using a concealed weapon. ”
Does your state have a grass roots gun rights organization? If so, see if you can join and ask if they have an internet forum in which you can particpate.
Gun rights organizations at the state level can be an excellent source of information regarding the legalities of carrying where you live. The forums that accompany these groups can also be an excellent place to ask questions of others and get good information. Good luck.
was the first time one of the guys had ever fired a gun
In my CCW class one participant who apparently was like that brought in a new sub compact in 40 S&W. What ever its merits for CC such a pistol arguably is too hot for a novice. Our instructor had to coach every shot of the shooting test to keep them on the paper through a big flinch.
@Matt in FL
It sorta scared me how easy it was
It should be easier. Assuming I’m a law abiding citizen I should be able to walk into a gun store, buy a gun, bullets, and holster and walk out of the store with it strapped to my hip. Sans licence/permit.
Your fear, as real as it may be to you, is completely unfounded. Why should it scare you how “easy” it is to get a licence/permit to conceal carry?
I truly believe that getting a carry permit should be more difficult
Oh, really? The mistake your making is in thinking that the licencing/permit process is designed to make people safe, that it’s designed to educate people. It’s not. It’s designed to act as a barrier, to add cost and time to the process so that less people get them.
Robert is correct when he said:
Besides, CCW training requirements are fundamentally elitist. AND they stand in direct contravention of both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.
My instructor in misspuri went into great detail for hours on the legal repercussions of actually firing at a bad guy. When it is considered ok to fire, what to do immediately afterwards, how to avoid having to use a gun in the first place. He also recommended buying legal ccw insurance, which covers u with a lawyer up to and including an indictment if u screw up. Many websites with more information were provided, and frequent range practice, along with a range logbook were recommended. All in all a well thought out presentation, IMO.
My Utah CCW instructor was a lawyer and so that was a very interesting class for me. He covered a few cases he defended and he gave a worse case scenario for those who use their weapon lawfully. The worst case being sued in civil court after being found innocent by the state, which is always a possibility given this litigious society. Best thing to do is to find out who is the best defense attorney in your area and keep his number handy.
Given the subpar experience of my CWFL class as detailed above, I’ve considered taking the class again, if I find one like the two of you have described. I have friends who are interested in (and own) guns but do not yet have a CWFL, so I may see if I can audit their class(es) if and when they take them, and I’ll help them find one that’s better than what I had.
@Matt in FLThe mistake your making is assuming that it’s the responsibility of a class to teach you everything. It’s not.
It’s their job to lead you in the right direction, but like a lot of other things the rules are always changing and they can’t possibly teach you everything.
You seem to have the attitude my kids get when I don’t give them the answer directly, but rather try to teach them how to find the answer. They can get cranky when the answer is not spoon feed to them. Maybe that’s what you were expecting going to your class, to just get all the answers feed to you. For a variety of reasons, it does not work that way. You have to be willing to find the answers on your own.
Ahhh…the Orwellian and twisted world of Mikey and his lapdogs. Coming to rationality, and extrapolating from solid data, is a bridge too far for them.As far as “AND they stand in direct contravention of both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.”, I’m really not too sure about that. Dare I utter the abject heresy that though there is no specific training requirement mentioned in the 2A, some training is a pretty good idea. I suspect that the Founders didn’t mention training because it probably never occurred to them that someone wishing to handle firearms, or swords, or pikes, or whatever might come to hand, would not be brought up in an environment where that wasn’t taught from an early age. Militia musters, such as they were, were training exercises. Long apprenticeships, in most trades and occupations, was the norm in those days.That said, in a free society one should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn’t adversely affect anyone else. “I say let everyone carry a gun and Darwin (and the courts) will sort it out. At the end of that learning curve we’d all be better off. Am I wrong?” Personally, I think that you’re absolutely right and I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that in our day and age that sort of laissez faire, que sera sera world view is pretty much a non starter. There are far too many busy bodies and control freaks, as well as all of the bureaucrats who’s very existence depends on lording over the unwashed masses, to ever think that could possibly occur. It’s for the children (and the sheeple), after all.
In this case, I agree with Robert.
Requiring training before the exercise of a specifically enumerated, Constitutionally protected right is “in direct contravention of both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.”
Would you feel comfortable requiring training before someone could attend church? Speak in public? Not at a gathering or rally but just to a friend or another person — free speech covers between friends as well as to crowds.
How about telling people they need training before they can be protected against unreasonable search and seizures?
Should people be competent with firearms? Absolutely.
But a government shouldn’t mandate training before people are free to exercise a right.
+1
Well said
On average the training I received in the military took about an hour a year and one day at the rang for qualifying. The armory held the weapons and outside of range day you didn’t see live ammo. The only way was to own your own and even then you had to store it at the armory (select few units trained every week). Training costs money so do bullets. Train as much as you can afford so as not to waste ammo.
Although expensive, I thought the California mandated 16-hour CCW training course provided me with valuable information on the laws and consequences of carrying and potentially using my pistol as well as a reasonable 50-round qualification test. The course also provided copious documentation on the laws and on the process for getting the CCW. If the state subsidized the course for low income families, I feel every CCW holder in California should take the course. It is in their own best interest.
The course is also in the best interest of California legislators who are bound an determined to make CCW permits as hard to obtain as humanly possible.
Just put the information up for free online and have a qualification test. I’ve slept through enough classes to know that a “course” doesn’t necessarily teach you anything. Space out in class, study at home, then pass the final. I don’t really think people should need a class or a test to legally own a firearm but I think classes in general are a joke. It’s like job training with no way of testing if it’s actually benefiting anyone.
How much training does one really need? Depends on which end of the muzzle you are most concerned about. I took the four day hand gun course at Frontsight, seen in the video above, and I can tell you it was good, but I don’t think four days was enough because every hour spent training increases you chances of survival in a gun fight. Isn’t that the point of carrying a gun, insuring you survival when you are confronted by an opposing force with evil intent? If you can’t make a quick decision about the use of force, quickly present you weapon from concealment, quickly and accurately fire, and quickly clear a malfunction, then pulling your weapon could actually put you at more risk. BTW, good luck doing all that if you have not spent hours training. If you like odds of showing someone how to load it and which way to point it, they will be fine shooting paper targets at a range but you better hope they never need to pull their gun in public to protect themselves from a life threatening situation. If you go to YouTube you can watch experienced gun people shoot themselves in the leg trying to present their weapons from a holster. How humiliating would that one last second of you life be when you shoot yourself in the leg right before you attacker shoots you in the chest?Now, should that training be mandated by big brother? Nope, not according to the US Constitution.
“There will be more incidents of domestic violence against women, there will be more incidents of disgruntled employees going berserk, there will be more trouble in bars.”
I wonder what’s so different about Wisconsin from other states with less-severe theft of second amendment rights? And where they got that crystal ball…
Should someone seek out proper (and even extensive) training for concealed carry? Absolutely. Should that be a law? I don’t see how it’s constitutional, just like I don’t see how licensing for carrying itself is constitutional.
“Crystal” is a “dancer” from Las Vegas. Precious.
Precious is a dancer from Peoria.
CCW training has about as much impact on gun safety as driver’s ed on automobile safety
Many decades ago in driver’s ed I remember struggling for a while until I got the hang of it. I nearly side-swiped a parked car; I nearly ran off the highway, etc. However much the brunt of jokes driver’s ed has some value IMHO.
Give them a Smith & Wesson 642 … how much firearms training does someone need for effective concealed carry? I reckon thirty seconds.
Hopefully one won’t shoot themselves during that first panicked self defense draw from concealment. Concerning snubbies, they are easier to conceal but more difficult to shoot (recoil, aiming, reloading) suggesting that training and experience are beneficial.
CCW training requirements … stand in direct contravention of both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment
Rhetorical question: is it prudent to trust the hand gun safety practices of hoi polloi after only thirty seconds of instruction?
In the end I have to swallow hard and agree that we don’t want more gub’mt regulation.
First, I’m so gonna steal “muzzle tov”.
This is an issue much debated on a gun board that I belong to. It’s not that I disagree with Robert’s points. But I do have a practical concern. Look, I’m from Brooklyn originally, and live on Long Island. 2a is definitely having a resurgence on the Island. Ranges are busier, and you can tell who is new because they KEEP MUZZLING ME. They don’t know any better.
I have faith that ultimately NYC will be forced to become more 2a friendly. But then what? It’s not like a lot of NYers grew up with their parents teaching them “don’t point the gun at people” and “don’t kill anybody over a TV set”.
Perhaps an hour or so on these subjects would be to everyone’s benefit.
@Lemming
No amount of training can fix stupid.
@Adam
You “can’t fix stupid”, but you can “fix ignorant”. Indeed, that’s probably a good definition of the difference between the two words.
My friends and neighbors are not stupid. Well, okay, some of them are. But most of them are, when it comes to gun handling and self-defense ignorant.
@Lemming
Ok, but when you see that dope at the range muzzling you, do you ignore it, or do you say something to either the offender or range master?
If you ignore it then I’d say your part of the problem, if you say something to the offender or range master then your part of the solution.
If you say something and the offender does not care, then well… you can’t fix stupid or ignorant.
I went to an indoor range for the first time a few moths ago. Interesting experience since I’d only eve used outdoor ranges where you are pretty much alone if you go at the right time of day. In any case a dude proceed to load his pistol at the back bench (which you are explicitly not allowed to do) and then swung it around, lasering me in the process, to face the range. I admit that I didn’t’ say anything to him. That day I was part of the problem.
The point–this guy was obviously not new to guns, he knew what he was doing, he was shooting well, but didn’t care so much about the safety part. A guy like that you can give all the training in the world but it’s not going to fix the underlying deficiency that makes them not care. You can’t fix ignorant unless the ignorant want to be fixed.
Just like you can tell people till the sun goes down that texting is akin to drunk driving, and yet they will still do it.
We, the people that know, have a responsibility to encourage, to pass along what we know. Someone already said it, we should strongly encourage training, but making it a government mandate crosses the line.
More training is good. That said, shooting is like anything else: subject to the law of diminishing returns. A S&W 442 in the pocket with 30 seconds of training gets you a lot of utility over no gun at all. 15 minutes to learn the fundamentals gets you a significant amount more. An hour to practice them will not be wasted. A two-day class taken from a quality instructor can greatly expand the number of circumstances in which you will be able to successfully apply them. But the more you shoot, the less you get. If your goal is to improve your safety, there comes a point where you’re better talking someone else into taking that first step. Every criminal they deal with is one less you’ll have to face with your own skills.
Of course, this is only about safety. There’s also a lot of fun to be had from guns, and most of us will not be able to shoot enough to reach the point of diminishing returns on that!
I believe this is too simplistic. The 2a says nothing about training but neither does it say anything about safety or how not to shoot yourself in the foot. While the weapon in your hand is great, the weapon that must be trained is between your ears. Maybe we need to refer to “too macho” article….
MikeB302000 . . .overexaggerates, uses colorful words and makes disconnected arugments and claims to invoke FUD because he has no facts to support his claims. Fear is a powerfull weapon of the gun grabbers and they use it to full effect because people neither bother to fact check their claims or will respond emotionally to their claims. Logic is never something they use because it would not support their argument.
The training industry also has a less than altruistic motive as well — money.
However, there is a responsibility for being a gun owner and if not mandated by your state, gun owners should IMHO, follow this course of action:
1) NRA Pistol Safety class/CCW Class. I bet many will find the class they took lacking. My class was 4hrs and I fired 6 shots from a K-22. Sorry, not enough to defend yourself.
2) A class on self defense in the home with the laws in your state. There are several taught near me and they are all taught by a lawyer who has actually defended people who have been involved in a shooting. Many state laws are a confusing mess with less than helpfull websites. The class also teaches tactics in a home invasion situation and how to pie around corners etc. Rules about STFU etc. This was a two day course.
3) General Shooting/Range time. You have to be familar with your weapon and you need to go on a regular basis to keep up your skills. If your lucky, you will find a range where you can purchase something you are happy with and will even help you learn the gun on a hot range.
4) First-aid class. You never know. You may get the jump or they may get the jump or someone in the house may be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Better to know to patch yourself up and someone else than to wait for the ambulance since you may be your own first responder.
5) Join your local 2a advocacy group or shooting club where they have classes and information sessions about new laws and/or self defense/gun training on the cheap or free.
None of this training or instruction may help on the day you may need to pull your gun but it is better to be prepared than to have no training or instruction at all.
[On a side note (because it bothers me): I am a car guy, and the training they give to teens is a JOKE! 6hrs and you get a license in most states. Drivers ages 15-20 accounted for 12% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2008 and 14% of all drivers involved in police-reported crashes and number has risen. Teens should have a self-defense winter/summer driving class before being let out on the road and BMW CCA and others have free classes for teens]
Simple. Encourage but do not require training and education.
Requiring training ups the cost of effective self defense, and those who usually have a hard time affording a weapon are those who need it the most. Required training’s additional expense in both time and money has the possibility of pricing someone out of protecting their lives.
Leave it up to the individual to decide how much training and education they think they need.
Having spend a good deal of my life in a military culture I cannot understand why people are so adverse to training requirements. Training is a good thing and it should be part of your annual routine.
However, I have one gripe about how civilian gun owners approach training. Training consists of both proficiency and tactical training. You don’t learn tactics on the range. What often passes for tactical training is actually firing doctrine, i.e,. shoot-shoot-look, shoot-look-shoot etc. Good tactical training puts you in potential real world scenarios and teaching you how to move, react and if necessary fire. Most of you shoot in tighter groups than I can but I have good combat accuracy and at least on paper know what I am doing from a tactical standpoint — one never knows how will you will do until you actually do it.
No one’s adverse to training. They’re adverse to training requirements.
Robert:
I reckon thirty seconds. Give them a Smith & Wesson 642 with the following instructions: “Open it this way, put the bullets in here (pointy end forward), close it like this, don’t point it at anyone you don’t want to shoot, put the gun in your pocket or a safe. Don’t shoot anyone unless they are in the process of trying to kill you. When you’re ready to shoot get as close to the bad guy as possible, point the gun at them and pull the trigger. Stop pulling when they stop attacking you. …”
That sounds like an aversion to training to me. It’s also bad tactical advice. You want to stay as far away as you can from the bad guy. At a minimun it trades space for time and more time is a good thing and it might even allow you back out of a bad situation.
You said “
I love training and recommend it to all and sundry. But VERY few people will avail themselves of it. That’s the reality.
As far as technique is concerned, people without shooting skills have the same two choices as the rest of us: run away or run towards the bad guy. If you’re going to shoot a bad guy and you don’t have much in the way of skill, the closer you get when you shoot [chances are] the less aggressive they remain. Also, running towards the BG satisfies the tactical goals of speed, surprise and violence of action.
Still working on this though. How do you dumb down armed self-defense?
That’s a pretty good plan until you run out of ammo. Then start running away.
But if you closed on the guy you may not be able to disengage.
If . . . a bad decision is better than no decision.
Methinks you have watched the Patriot one too many times. Charging at a ready opponent is a last ditch desperation when you are out of options move. It shouldn’t be your first move. If advancing on your attacker causes him to run then simply brandishing your weapon is probably going to make him run too. When you close on your attacker it makes his shot easier as well and could bring you into reach of a knife wielding attacker. Your objective should always be engage as far away as possible. That’s why I stress combat accuracy over tight groups. Hit 99% of your attackers anywhere and he is going to stop the attack. Just shooting will stop most of them. Know you enemy and our enemy is someone who is looking for an easy victim. He isn’t interested in winning ugly.
regarding “bad tactical advice”. It occurs to me that there are two different mind sets on this thread, and depending upon which one your subscribe to influences “what kind of training” and “what kind of doctrine”.
In a self-defense shooting situation which of the following priorities is primary?
1) To maximize your own safety.
2) To ensure that you don’t harm bystanders.
I am not a gun grabber – think of Nixon giving the peace signs.
Robert, what I love about your site is half your own guys say you’re wrong. Even within your echo chamber you’ve got diversity.
The reason you’re wrong is twofold, one, as was mentioned by a Armed Intelligentsia member or two, the 2A has nothing to do with concealed carry. I actually feel the 2A’s inapplicability goes much further, but certainly in reaches out to you CCW guys. And, two, in Wisconsin there will now be more guns in more hands more of the time. Lax requirements being what they are, what with no mental health or drug testing and all, that’s bound to result in unnecessary and preventable incidents.
Diversity within an echo chamber? How does that work?
Mike:
Anti-Self defense/Anti-Second Amendment people always make this claim when a state relaxes its gun laws and yet the bloodshed always fails to materialize. Why is that?
Yes, Mike, please explain why you think Wisconsin will be different then every other state that has implemented concealed carry since FL in 1987. I really want to know. Why do the antis always claim that “blood will flow” when it has been shown time and time not to?
From what I can tell, you seem like an intelligent guy. What goes through your head when you make these claims? Honestly, I’m not trying to be a smart-ass. I want to know because I don’t get it. How do you reconcile these discrepencies in your own mind?
I love how tyrants-in-training like mike and his ilk are surprised at varied opinions within one group.
One thing I have notice is that there has been a sharp increase in shootings involving legitimate CCW holders, and there has been a few cases of vigilante justice, and (the anti gun crowd goes wild with enthusiasm), but considering a few years ago their weren’t any, 1 or 2 is a huge increase. Incidence involving CCW holders is still is not even a fraction of the total recorded incidence of gun violence, and even the incidences of those using weapons continues to drop as the good guys are allowed to carry. They can twist the data, but the trend is there, and the truth will come out.
@Guz4fun
Data? To support your assertion that shooting involving CCW holders has gone up.
Mike
“Diversity is in and of itself what makes this country great.” Someone smarter than I said that. Too bad I can’t remember who. In any case. Training can only prepare one for a finite set of of situations but the more you train the more situations one can be prepared for. In the SHTF situation there will undoubtedly be something the training didn’t cover. “Hope for the best prepare for the worst” again someone smarter than I.
CCW training requirements are fundamentally elitist…
Agreed.
If training requirements are necessary for CCW, then an intelligence and aptitude test is required to vote. But you won’t find that; we’d never have another progressive in office again.
Truth be told, a competency requirement for voting would prevent far more trouble, suffering, and danger than any CCW requirement.
At one time the overwhelming majority of the population were trained in firearms at home and grew up using them. They automatically did the right things because they were trained to. Now we jump forward to the current population living in cities and never having seen a gun in real life. Most crime is in cities, so city dwellers are clamoring to carry a weapon to protect themselves, right? Well, the problem is that this new group of potential shooters has NEVER had any firearms training, nor even been around the culture that does use firearms. Different case than it was in 1775 or even 1945. We are talking about a deadly weapons here and to have no familiarity with them will lead to careless handling and is very dangerous. We keep screaming about the 2nd amendment rights of the shooter, but what about my freedom not to get shot by these ignorant people? These aren’t the farm kids I grew up with. We lived with guns. These are ignorant people who are rightfully scared and want to protect themselves, both from bad guys and from legal actions. But where in their thinking does MY safety come in? I demand competency with weapons for anyone wishing to carry one or even own one. You folks keep talking about this issue from the “You the shooter” point of view, how about thinking a little about “You the unintentional target” point of view?
Dopes and ignorami have the same constitutional rights as you. No more and no less. Deal with it.
+1
There is a big difference between what we would like to see and what is permitted under an enumerated right. I think it is wise to get training, but it is offensive to me to have the exercise of a right hinge on government mandated training.
Still, we are moving in the right direction. My children are freer today on the issue of the 2nd Amendment than I was growing up – at least when it comes to carrying a firearm for personal protection.
There will be more incidents of domestic violence against women, there will be more incidents of disgruntled employees going berserk, there will be more trouble in bars.
The same can be said about reading mikey’s blahg.
I took the CCW course in Ohio. It was a 12 hour course. We had a visit from an attorney and two local cops taught the majority of the course pointing out cases and procedures they themselves use when confronted with DGUs and CCW permit holders. It was educational and the lawyer covered every question that we asked and we left with a pamphlet explaining legalities. I know I don’t have mine and lost it in the first week. It’s the sort of thing worth laminating.
Additionally on the second day we went through 100 rounds of .380 or greater caliber handgun ammunition. No .22 was not allowed (one lady slipped by with a .32) and it was almost educational. Problem was the cops were bad instructors with no real teaching experience. Good shots but bad teachers. That couldn’t get the lady with the .32 to keep her thumbs from crossing behind the slide while shooting and really didn’t work with anyone to improve their accuracy. Safety of the class of about 21 was all that counted. A majority had never fired a gun before and I was on that list. I took the course for what it was, a formality, and went on to get passable on my own as far as handling firearms.
From what I understand of these comments this class was held and handled with a lot more care than other courses in other states. The 2A does not list training in the wording but the founders likely assumed every able bodied male would remain a voluntary member of the standing military in the event of another war. Muster was more traditional then. However, the wording isn’t going to be changed and if we read it for what it is then no, government mandates are bullshit. Period.
But something exploding and propelling small bits of possible injury and death prolly merits more attention than say parallel parking. Commonsense says train. We all got to be better drivers on our own and we all certainly didn’t take Driver’s Ed (taught by step mom) so we can at least encourage it. I do to my friends. The idea of being hit by an ND or friendly fire scares me enough to donate some time to that cause with them. Take responsibility and endorse the idea. It’s easier than splitting hairs and waiting for legislation to do it for you.
As a homeschooler I may be guilty of standing on a particular soapbox now and again.
I am not trying to make little of good training opportunities. But… I do not believe those later opportunities will ever impact safe and practical firearms use for defense or war as significantly as the time I spend with my children teaching them safety and good shooting technique.
That is one hole in the desire for CCW classes. The same for Driver’s ed – the time I spend with my kids learning to drive will vastly outweigh the limited time a driver ed instructor will have with them.
Florida focused on covering the law, the castle doctrine, the rules of engagement. The actual firearms training was clearing, loading, operation and safe handling under auspices of the trainer, a police officer. My trainer was very detached and just followed the rules. He didn’t question the motives nor paint any crazy scenarios. He merely cautioned us against drawing too quick and emphasized that a quick man with a knife was tough to counter with a gun.
While I’m in favor of training, I’m dubious about mandated training. It’s just one more way the anti-gun politicians can make getting a CCW more difficult. Here in Ohio you need 12 hours of training. Eight hours you could get in one day. Twelve means a two-day course, or several evenings. That cuts down on the number of people who can manage to take a course. I don’t think 12 hours is that much better than 8 hours, as far as teaching something to the students. It simply serves as another barrier to getting a permit.
Whilst I agree mandatory training should be proscribed, voluntary & specific training can do a great deal to make both the shooter & those around them safer. It can make for faster & more accurate shots when fractions of a second mean the difference between standing on two feet & laying on a slab.
Those who wrote the 2nd Amendment knew the value of training when they used “well regulated” to preface militia because they certainly weren’t referencing fancy drill movements.
If I were to have the choice, I would willingly participate in voluntary training in the laws & practicalities of defensive gun use provided I felt what I learned would benefit me.
How can a gun that’s already in the home be more likely to be involved in a domestic violence incident if its owner gets a CCW permit?
Non sequitur.
Comments are closed.