Passing CCW tests - too easy or too hard?


PDA






Logistar
June 22, 2003, 11:02 PM
When I went to my CCW class there were some people there that probably SHOULDN'T be carrying a gun in public. :what: (This was mentioned in another thread.)

I just wondered what you guys thought about the level of knowledge and proficiency someone should have to demonstrate before they get their license.

Is the verbal test and the firing test about right, too easy, or too difficult? What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Passing CCW tests - too easy or too hard?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Min
June 22, 2003, 11:11 PM
I vote forget test. I mean, Small Government, man!

pax
June 22, 2003, 11:16 PM
In Washington state, there is no training requirement.

Oregon has a very similar demographic profile to Washington, and does have a training requirement.

CCW statistics are roughly similar in both states. In both states, misuse of a gun by a CCW holder is vanishingly rare.

The only statistical area where Oregon and Washington diverge is the number of CCW holders. Oregon has fewer.

In other words, the only apparent effect caused by mandatory training is to reduce the number of CCW holders.

Hmmm.

pax

You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you. -- Steve Munden, quoted by Jeff Cooper in his commentaries

Min
June 22, 2003, 11:19 PM
We don't need no stinkin tests!

If anyone wants to live a long happy life, they'll know enough to get training with their firearm. They don't need the govt to mandate that. If they don't know that...well...

Standing Wolf
June 22, 2003, 11:20 PM
If innocence until guilt is proven is the law of the land, I have to believe we need to trust firearms owners' competence unless there's clear evidence to the contrary.

Vermont- and Alaska-style C.C.W. should be the law of the land.

CZ 75 BD
June 22, 2003, 11:40 PM
our test is real hard. Ya have to reach the counter with yer money! :p;)

chetrogers
June 22, 2003, 11:45 PM
A lady at my work got hers "Oregon" she had to take a safety class and then go through the usuall waiting period..She never had to touch a gun to get her's..IM gonna get mine soon

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 12:12 AM
In other words, the only apparent effect caused by mandatory training is to reduce the number of CCW holders.

Golly Pax, that drawing that statistical conclusion is the same as saying that gun control works becasue japan has less gun crime thatn the us..

WilddontforgetthepeoplesrepublicofportlandAlaska

pax
June 23, 2003, 12:21 AM
WildididntforgetportlandbutyouforgotseattleAlaska --

Catch the word "apparent"? It was there for a reason.

pax

We are getting into semantics again. If we use words, there is a very grave danger they will be misinterpreted. -- H. R. Haldeman, testifying in his own defense

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 12:27 AM
Catch the word "apparent"? It was there for a reason.

Apparently I didnt :)

WildshallwecomparecrimeratesAlaska

Tamara
June 23, 2003, 12:31 AM
WildshallwecomparecrimeratesAlaska

So now mandatory CCW training reduces crime rates?

That's kind of a stretch, don't you think?

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 12:38 AM
That's kind of a stretch, don't you think?

Apparently all statistical analysis is.....:D

Actually, I was referring to the crime rate in WA with more CCWs vis a vis the crime rate in Oregon with less CCWs...

WildfiguresdontliebutliarsfigureseeTedKennedyAlaska

pax
June 23, 2003, 12:42 AM
Ah. Apparently you didn't catch the part of my post where I mentioned, "Oregon has a very similar demographic profile to Washington..."

That included per-capita crime rates, which are roughly similar.

pax

Minute_Of_Torso
June 23, 2003, 12:45 AM
The only test I had to pass here in WA state was whether or not I could sign my name on my check in order to pay the fees.

I would have a SERIOUS problem if someone told me I need to pass a test before I could CCW. :cuss:

That's grounds for moving, IMHO.

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 12:59 AM
That included per-capita crime rates, which are roughly similar.

2001...Seattle is 3.1...Portland is 2.4...

Ergo, lesser numbers of concealed carries equals a lower crime rate..

Now Seattle has more Starbucks than Portland so that could have something to do with it too....

Cofee control not gun control....

Wildandanchorageis3.8Alaska

Tamara
June 23, 2003, 01:05 AM
Ergo, lesser numbers of concealed carries equals a lower crime rate..

Please, please, please tell me that you don't really think that there is any corellation at all. :uhoh:

Idaho
June 23, 2003, 01:06 AM
What test?

pax
June 23, 2003, 01:09 AM
Wild --

Go back a few years, comparing the rates as you go. You'll find that OR and WA regularly land within a couple points on the scales, sometimes trading places.

Like I said, there's not a dime's worth of difference in the demographics nor the carry laws of the two states, with the one exception of Oregon having a training requirement and Washington not having one.

Oregon does have fewer CCW holders, though -- probably as a direct result of the added expense and hassle of the training requirement.

Oh, the non-difference in crime rates? It means criminals don't care whether it's 1 in 6 or 1 in 10.

pax

Criminal arrestees experience high levels of firearm victimization. Over half report being threatened with a gun and 42 percent have been shot at with a gun. -- National Institutes of Justice. NIJ Research Preview: Arrestees and Guns: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market, September 1995

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 01:12 AM
Please, please, please tell me that you don't really think that there is any corellation at all.

Well statistically there is, isnt there???

Or are we gonna treat stats like the antis do, ignore those we dont like?

Or are we gonna treat ALL s tatistics with a healthy dose of skeptiscism?

And by the way, Amherst NY has the lowest murder rate in the country and is in NY...hence draconian gun control works, neh?

WildoyesthenumberAlaska

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 01:15 AM
Oregon does have fewer CCW holders, though -- probably as a direct result of the added expense and hassle of the training requirement.

Really? How about all the other factors...maybe Oregon has less gun owners...more liberal democrats...higher rate of illiteracy..less fear of crime....less Starbucks coffee...eat more asparagus...

Maybe Oregonians just dont care to carry...maybe they carry illegally..

Just trying to point out that post hoc ergo propter hoc is not always the way to go...

WildasparaguscontrolAlaska

pax
June 23, 2003, 01:24 AM
Good grief, Wild. Apparently you probably didn't see any qualifiers in any of the statements I put up ... nor did you understand the meaning of the statement that OR and WA have "roughly similar demographics."

I'm done. Sleep well.

pax

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791

Wildalaska
June 23, 2003, 01:27 AM
I'm done. Sleep well.

You too.... it was fun. Im gone for a while, off to NYC where I will PROBABLY get mugged because APPARENTLY i cant carry even my NAA there...

WildbonvoyageAlaska

JPM70535
June 23, 2003, 01:29 AM
I don't believe 2A stipulates any mandatory training as a prerequisite for RKBA. That being the fact, I can't really answer the question posed.

As a retired LEO I naturally believe that anyone who handles a firearm should have a thorough working knowledge of its controls and operation, but then again it's just good common sense.

THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR GUNS INTO PLOWS,

WILL PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DON'T!!!

WhoKnowsWho
June 23, 2003, 03:23 AM
I think it should be a bit tougher, i.e. helping the old guy fire his revolver at my qualification by cocking the hammer for him was a bit over the top.

Though the written test was ambiguous and stupidly obvious on the same page. And was just updated, and out of date with the new laws!

For those places with tests, you should be allowed to take the test and the shoot at the beginning, and if you passed, get some of the payment for the class refunded and get the paperwork done without the 16 or more hours of class.

And that other old guy who took his hearing protection off in the range because he turned off his hearing aid... needs a smack from the old guy who was too weak to cock the hammer or pull the DA triggger.

buttrap
June 23, 2003, 04:18 AM
Test? they actually have a test for that in some places? that almost shocks me. Actually the main diff between Ore and Wash is in Ore you can pack a full auto Ingrim with the permit if you take the class and can find the bucks for the M-gun.

GoldenLoki
June 23, 2003, 06:03 AM
We "shouldn't" have to get a permit to exercise our rights, so obviously no test should be required.

That having been said, everyone should get training on their own in the laws of the land and the safe and proper use of their firearms. Then get more training :)

GL

GSB
June 23, 2003, 07:56 AM
Interesting question. Philosophically, I'm opposed to any permitting or test at all. On the other hand, some of the people who took the FL CCW class with me literally couldn't get lead on paper at three yards. I really hope I am never in the general vicinity of a bad guy if one of these crack shots has to defend him or herself (although the bad guy will likely be perfectly safe).

Ryder
June 23, 2003, 07:58 AM
I have the opinion that all first time gun owners should be required to take a class, not just for ccw unless they've never owned a gun before. I don't like the idea of somebody who doesn't know how to respect a firearm or hasn't learned the simplest safety rules being anywhere near me with a gun.

On the other hand it's beyond rediculous to mandate these classes for someone who already knows these things. I learned gun safety though parents, high school, and the military. I am in the gov't registration system for over 30 years now. What do they think I've been doing with all those guns for all those years? Yeah right, they make great coffee stirrers. :D

At the class I took about half the people there had never shot a gun in their life and several didn't even own a gun yet. Listening to all those ignorant questions was about as much help as the "expert instruction". The course outline was obviously written by an anti. It was for sure the state's attempt to brainwash people into their version of gun ownership.

Now I have to retake this class everytime I want to renew the permit? Give me a freaking break! If I have to defend my life with a gun nothing they said at that class makes any difference until I get to trial. :banghead:

Baba Louie
June 23, 2003, 09:18 AM
Whereas I feel (don't ya love that word?) anyone who owns a firearm of any type should receive some training in its proper use and maintenance, the requirement for mandatory training is one of those lawyer CYA things just so's the good and kind hearted STATE can quickly point out that everyone THEY issued a "license" was "trained"; therefore THEY aren't to blame if someone who had their mug shot, fingerprints and FBI background check decided to go Postal and the inevitable ensuing lawsuits begin.

And so it goes.

As to the "mug shot, fingerprints and FBI background check "... future criminal information already on file, thank you very much.

I'm surprised they didn't want a DNA sample to boot. "Just a small snippet of hair and fingernail clippings Mr. Baba Louie. Its for the good of the community."

I do think its a good thing to know about some of the laws on the books as to WHEN "lethal force" may be applied and more importantly, when lethal force MAY NOT be used.

Our CCW class instructor video taped all of the classroom lectures ala LFI just in case someone actually had to use lethal force, they could be introduced into a courtroom setting as part of your training... a good thing I think. Ya can't lawyer proof enough nowadays it seems.

Personally, I thank my Dad and Uncles for bringing me up right and inprinting proper firearm use training into my young mind from the getgo.

Adios

Sharpie1
June 23, 2003, 09:52 AM
I live in Virginia, and to obtain a CCW permit here - the statute says that some counties may require that the applicant prove that he has "shown compentence" with firearms handling.

Virginia is shall-issue, and most counties require this.

The Virginia Hunter's Education Safety Course, which is required for all new hunters seeking a hunting license -- qualifies for this "training" -- even though there is no gun handling in this class.

Some people choose to take private training courses, and NRA courses.

When I teach an NRA course that does not have a test, I make a test up for it anyway. If someone is going to take a class from me and they are just there to get their permit, I still want them there with the right attitude, and listening...that is why I give a test.

I can't stand it when someone signs up for a class, then just doesn't pay attention or participate in the class because he thinks he knows it all.

TD

Oleg Volk
June 23, 2003, 10:01 AM
Seems to me that we shouldn't even need CHLs (see Vermont, Alaska). If a test is required, I'd be inclined to make it "Draw and point at the target without sweeping bystanders with the muzzle! Done." Even a person who cannot shoot well ought to be able to carry as it may take nothing more than a contact shot to save that person's life...and who is to establish the standards? 75% with a .380 of better cuts out l'il old lady who can't shoot anything over a .22 and the guy whose eyesight is lousy but still adequate to hit center mass at 10ft, though not at 75ft.

Andy Stedman
June 23, 2003, 10:08 AM
I voted for the last option, since I couldn't see anywhere to vote for "Vermont Carry".

Logistar
June 23, 2003, 05:35 PM
I was intending to post the poll saying "If you HAD to be tested before getting your CCW".... but then I threw the last option in....

I think I get the idea though. No tests to begin with (I agree) but if you HAVE to have them, then at least make them realistic.

I guess I hate to see all the hassle of the "tests" when all they seemed to prove was that you could read (open-book test) and could shoot... well... kinda shoot. I think ANYONE with decent vision should have no problem - even with improper grip... improper stance... bad sight picture... flinching... eyes closing... etc..etc...:rolleyes:

dav
June 23, 2003, 06:02 PM
I took tests all through school. I didn't mind.
So, if they taught proper gun handling in second/third grade and had us memorize the four rules, and tested us on it, I think that would be good.
But for an adult to have to prove to a government flunky that they (the adult) know what they are doing, when the government flunky may not even know what is correct or what is not, is pretty dumb.:rolleyes:
On the other hand, I would prefer taking a test and being given my CCW than doing everything I can and still being denied, as is the normal case here in the PRK.

CB900F
June 23, 2003, 06:12 PM
I wouldn't know. I've never had to take a test to qualify. I've held a permit in more than one state though. I'm really thinking that I should take one of these classes just to find out what goes on.

900F

If you enjoyed reading about "Passing CCW tests - too easy or too hard?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!