CCW Holders: How much training have you had?

Status
Not open for further replies.

vintage68

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
140
I've taken two or three ccw weekend courses for my various permits, and I always shudder at how easy they are to pass. Basically all you need to do is be a warm body, show up for the lecture, shoot at a target 5-7 yards away and score hits somewhere on the paper, and you're approved for your permit.

I've also taken courses at Frontsight and Gunsite, so as a civilian ccw holder I'm aware of how much I really didn't know before taking those courses and how much training I still need.

The point of all this? Well, I'm curious: If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, how much training have you had?
 
I haven't had a CCW course but I don't think that it should be required for people to jump through hoops to be able to carry a gun, especially since most situations are over without a shot being fired.

If someone has to shoot anything over 7 yards, they can also run away.
 
I have taken the basic CCW course... Hopefully this summer I will take a level 2 pistol course.
 
Here in Oregon, it's even more lax. All you do is show up to a class, listen to a 3-hour lecture, sign a piece of paper and get a photo-copied, home-made certificate to take to the local sheriff. Then the standard background check, fingerprints, etc. Later I realized that at no point during the process do you have to speak or prove that you understand what's being spoken to you. In other words, you don't have to understand a word of English, but you can get your CHL.

I've been shooting on a regular basis since I was 9 or 10. I'm confident in my skills and my safety practices. But in Oregon, you may not have ever fired a gun in your life, but if you have a clear background and about $80, you can get your CHL. What if a first-time shooter need a CHL to protect themselves and their loved ones? Fine. Please just learn how to safely operate a firearm during a formal range qualification.

I would like to see a range qualification built in here in Oregon. This way, if a person has a clear background check, the only reason they wouldn't receive their CHL would be if they can't safely operate a firearm and follow instructions. Fine by me. How would this hurt? Others on THR have strongly disagreed with me and see no reason why a range qualification would make a CHL holder and those around them any safer. DMV driving tests have been used as an argument on both sides. Does the DMV driving test keep all dangerous drivers off the road? No. Does it assure that a person can't get their driver's license if they can't even operate a vehicle? Yes. I know people who have repeatedly failed the DMV driving test. Do I feel a little relieved that they aren't on the road? Yes. If a person repeatedly failed a range requirement to receive their CHL, would I feel a little relieved that they weren't walking around with a loaded weapon? Yes. You see, my point is that like a DMV driving test, a range requirement wouldn't keep all irresponsible people from having a CHL, just those that are SO clueless that they can't safely operate a firearm after some instruction.
 
I have very little (well none) formal training other than what was required for my state.

I have spent a lot of time shooting and have been a member of a couple of ranges. I do pretty well against stationary paper targets but I know in a real life situation that wouldn't compare at all.

Want to look around here for some classes (anybody recommend any around East TN). I have bought several Ayoob books I need to read also.
 
It is fairly likely that a majority of ccw holders on this board have above average training.
 
Ignoring the fact that you shouldn't need the permission of the state to carry, if you do carry it is in your best interest to get formal training in defensive shooting that includes realistic force on force training.

My wife and I and some of our friends have spent the time and money to take several courses outside the range/lane setting so that we have at least been trained in using our firearms in defensive settings.
 
More or less chronologically.

-Cattle farm training (yes I'm serious)
-LE training
-NRA training (various types)
-Several refresher safety courses
-Unofficial participation in some USDOJ classes
-Unofficial participation in a couple of U.S. Army range exercises
-Regular range and field practice.

I'd cheerfully give up a week to attend LFI but haven't had the opportunity yet.
 
I hold a Florida CWFL for which I had to take no training beyond what I received in the military 30 some years ago on completely different firearms. However I also teach NRA pistol and personal protection courses and regularly shoot IPSC matches. I've never any advanced gun fighting training.

I know it's a gamble, but I've had as much training as I am going to get unless I feel it's more likely I'll have a violent encounter than I do now.
 
-- Semi-pointless required class for my Florida license that included no range time.

-- Four-Day Defensive Handgun training at Front Sight, which was pretty amazing and noticeably improved my skills.

-- Dry Practice several times a week.

-- Two hours at the range twice a month

-- One IDPA match a month
 
hold a Florida CWFL for which I had to take no training beyond what I received in the military 30 some years ago on completely different firearms. However I also teach NRA pistol and personal protection courses and regularly shoot IPSC matches. I've never any advanced gun fighting training.

Well this is interesting. Am I to understand that you teach an NRA pistol course without ever receiving that, or training other than military firearms training from 30 years ago?

Just curious..

How did you qualify to be an instructor?

Oh, NRA basic handgun course for myself. And boyscout camp 31 years ago...
 
When I lived in Florida I knew a guy who was a security guard instructor.Many times I would shoot with his group just for something to do.When I needed a certificate he signed mine off.Here in Mississippi there is no requirement I'm aware of.
 
Last edited:
If someone has to shoot anything over 7 yards, they can also run away.

And get yourself shot in the back?
Not a good plan.


CCW Holders: How much training have you had?

I agree that most CCW requirements are child's play for an experienced shooter but the idea is just to assure that you can handle the gun some little bit and know the laws.
Personally if it was up to me, I would go one of two ways to allow legal carry.
1. No restrictions and testing at all, "shall not be infringed".
or
2. A day or two of classroom, followed by a day of shooting and somewhat realistic qualification.

I used to favor #1 until I began to see just how unqualified, unskilled and ignorant of the law that many people are that are carrying guns.
Left up to themselves to improve, many people are too lazy.


My training?
Goes back through the last 55 years.:)
 
It is fairly likely that a majority of ccw holders on this board have above average training.
Above what average?

I'm actually quite inclined to disagree with that statement, though.

I would not argue the vast majority of THR holders in all probability shoot their firearms quite often, possibly much more than the "average" American gunowner ...

... but, I'd like to see support for this idea that a majority of the THR membership (those having CHLs/CPLs/CWPs) have formal training above their states' mandated requirements.

Judging by how often folks hereabouts complain about the cost of ammo, the lack of training in their areas, the lack of places to shoot near their homes, and the lack of personal time they have to even get to the range as much as they desire ... I think that presuming that just because someone participates in an internet gun forum makes them more likely to have "above average" formal training with firearms is ... wrong.
 
training

Besides the unofficial training that was instilled in me when I was 7 years old by my grandfather when he took me hunting?

Just the classes necessary to get the license to carry concealed. Required by law.

Was a Machinist Mate in the Navy, so I wasn't issued a gun and the training in boot camp was a joke. 6 rounds with a 1911.

Probably could use some force on force training when I find the time and money.

Don't get to the range as often as I'd like and don't consider that training, since nobody is really teaching me anything. But it is practice of sorts.
 
I've taken two or three ccw weekend courses for my various permits, and I always shudder at how easy they are to pass.
You shudder because its not overly Difficult for people to earn the "right" to defend themselves? Why? Why aren't you outraged that there is a state mandated training requirement at all? Why aren't you shuddering that you even need a license to defend yourself?
 
I have no formal training other than the SC CCW course, which is a joke.

Like someone said, hits *anywhere* on the B27 target black area qualify as "hits", and you aren't shooting from very far. What amazed me was that the instructor was real impressed that I got a "perfect score" on the shooting qualification. Even then, I was wondering how anyone could ever miss, and I was *much* less proficient with a handgun at the time I took the test than I am today.

Today I still have no training, but I practice a lot more now. Specifically, I shoot IDPA as often as possible with my actual carry gun/holster/mag carrier (up to once a month if the schedule allows). I'd say I'm usually in the top quarter of SS shooters. As far as comparison to cops, we do have a few of them at the match most months, and I out score all but one or two of them consistently. I imagine since they are the cops that bother to practice, they are probably in the top bracket as far as shooting skill on the police force. If I'm better than most of the cops, I consider myself skilled enough to carry on the street. So thats my reasoning. :)

As far as what training I think should be required, I tend to agree with a previous poster: Either A) None, or B) Something a lot more in depth than what we have now, because the present one is a waste of time.

Our driving test could be passed by a drunk 12 year old as well... its equivalent to our CCW course.
 
Fair bit of experience over some 50 years, plus NRA courses and USPSA competition specific training. For pistol permit none was required.

But I'll have to say that from all the 'sweeping' and unsafe gun handling:what: I witness at public ranges, more 'training' of some kind is needed. I can't tell you how many times I've packed up and left after someone pointing their loaded gun 'up-range'!
 
"You shudder because its not overly Difficult for people to earn the "right" to defend themselves? Why? Why aren't you outraged that there is a state mandated training requirement at all? Why aren't you shuddering that you even need a license to defend yourself?"

We hear a lot of talk about "rights", what about our responsibilities?


I know this is going to get me flamed by a lot of members, but while firearms are a right, carrying them is also a heavy responsibility. For this reason I support training and background checks as a requirement to carrying a firearm.

I witnessed one woman at my last ccw class who repeatedly closed her eyes when she fired and kept missing the target five yards away. She passed.

You have the right to carry, you have the responsibility not to if you are incompetent with a firearm.

As they say at Frontsight, if you're ever involved in a shooting you'll only be half as good as your best day at the range under timed drills.

Flame on!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top