I worry about negligent discharges more than anything. Whole lot of dumb CCW holders out there who like to ride a very fine line when it comes to safety.
You Asked For It, You Got It
- Thread starter Jim Watson
- Start date
Old Dog
Member
Ah, the ol' "slippery slope." I used to think that way, but then I learned to stop worrying and simply remember there are far more risks to our lives than stupid, untrained people carrying handguns. Just get on your public streets, roads and highways if you have any questions.
I live in one of the first two shall-issue states (Indiana being the other), which has never required training to carry a firearm in public. Guess what? This state has an incredibly low rate of folks legally carrying handguns getting involved in stupid activities, lower than states that have traditionally required training to obtain concealed-carry licenses.
Obviously, these requirements are instituted to make it more difficult, or stop completely, citizens from legally carrying firearms. There is no other reason.
I will continue to advocate for training, but never mandatory training.
I've never seen any evidence that mandatory training makes any difference with that. Have you? I say this as someone who used to be a CHL instructor in Ohio, back when they required training in order to get a CHL permit. People who took the class were in one of two categories. One was people who wanted to be able to carry a magical talisman, a gun, that would protect them from harm. These people (who were in the majority by a significant margin), were only interested in meeting the bare minimum requirements and promptly forgot everything they learned shortly after leaving the class. Most never carried a gun again. A few carried one in their vehicle. The second category (the minority) were those who understood that carrying a deadly weapon is not something that should be taken lightly and is something that requires training and practice to master. These people would be seeking out good training regardless of whether it was mandatory or not.
Moral of the story is that you can't force people to be responsible and put real effort into doing the right thing through government mandates.
No its just a common sense thing for the most part. We are in agreement. I would say the only way it could somehow be solved is through a massive effort to inform people on different firearms design. That mainly falls on knowledgeable and genuine firearms enthusiasts like many in this forum. Things like youtube can and have done a lot of positive things but also a lot of damage IMO.
Dont even get me started on "government mandates" LOL.
Might be good if Firearms instructors who understand design inform people on some of the choices they make safety wise but many dont have a lot of experience with all the different types so its kinda tough. Mt first qualify post military was with a 9mm Tokarev and the instructor didnt know what it even was let alone all the safety considerations involved in that design. He sure liked shooting it though LOL. There was an incident here a few years ago where some joker had a negligent discharge while carrying his Hi-point C9 chambered (Solid budget pistol but thats a NO,NO!). My old neighbor is LEO and used to carry his glock 26 in his back pocket, no holster and chambered while push mowing the lawn. He eventually ended that when another LEO here gave himself Glock Leg one day at the LE range. Theres just a whole lot of dumb out there these days when it comes to carrying firearms. Im all for people carrying firearms for self defense but they need to be smart about it. No room for Ego or short fuses either.
Old Dog
Member
As my dad used to say, "You absolutely cannot legislate the people into all of a sudden using common sense."
Jim Watson
Member
Please outline the training.
Did you instruct in shooting and teach operation of the individual guns brought in and marksmanship?
The NJ course looks like some classroom and then a qualification shot cold.
I did. The class was 8 hours of classroom time, some of which included hands instruction and then 2 hours (officially. It often went longer) of range time. This was 2 hours longer than the state mandated minimum. Students often brought their own weapons and were instructed in their operation, if they needed it, but if they did not already have one, we encouraged them to wait to buy till after the class. This would allow them (hopefully) to avoid some of the mistakes that many new gun owners make when buying a new weapon (buying because it "fits" them in the store, buying because it's small, buying because their spouse said that's what they should have, etc. etc.). Our class went well beyond what most CHL classes did, partially because we wanted people to get the most out of the class, partially because we wanted to (within reason) overwhelm them in an attempt to reinforce the fact that a CHL class is not remotely close to sufficient training for someone to be responsibly carrying a gun. Which brings me to your second line. The document we're discussing describes the proficiency requirements, not the training needed in order to attain that level.
IMO, specific designs would be one of the least important aspects of the training. One of the things that we emphasized in our class was that a person did not need to know all of the design and operation specifics of a handgun in order to safely handle it. As long as they followed the two basic rules, they could handle a weapon without shooting someone or something by mistake (unless, perhaps, it was a P320
), even if they had no idea how to operate that specific firearm. Obviously, a person needs to familiarize themselves with their chosen weapon, but I would much rather they spend the time and money to learn how to fight with one handgun than in learning how a bunch of different handguns work. That can come later and is something that can be done at home by a person with a good training foundation and decent internet search skills.Jim Watson
Member
That's the point, there is no mention of training.
I guess I'm not following you. Why would there be a mention of training in a document describing a proficiency test?
Respectfully... that is a bad approach/,mindset. There are a lot of pistols out there like the P320. There are also a lot of handguns out there with specific quirks from present and past. Instructors need to be familiar with that stuff. Having the knowledge to carry a firearm safely is just as important as being able to fight with one. Your crew is not putting the safety of the student first if this is being overlooked. Negligent discharges are a result of sloppy firearms handling due to ignorance and no student is the same therefore blanket approaches can be dangerous. Military or LE training is completely different as everyone is carrying standard regulation firearms. Civilian training is a different scenario all together as people can carry anything.IMO, specific designs would be one of the least important aspects of the training. One of the things that we emphasized in our class was that a person did not need to know all of the design and operation specifics of a handgun in order to safely handle it. As long as they followed the two basic rules, they could handle a weapon without shooting someone or something by mistake (unless, perhaps, it was a P320
Important to not let ego keep you from learning and teaching others about their firearms in a fashion that aids in safety and responsibility to themselves and others. Theres a whole lot of recklessness in firearms education/instruction these days as its basically the wild west. Hopefully your crew is not part of that. If someone brings a handgun to class and you are not familiar with the design I would suggest your crew learn. Maybe hire a knowledgeable person for the staff.
As for the P320 its pretty simple. Dont carry a round in the chamber DUH ....LOL. Sig should be ashamed of themselves as should be the owners who keep making excuses for all these incidents of spontaneous ignition. Its completely unacceptable for a top tier manufacturer.
Dangit Im off topic now. Apologies Jim Watson.
You misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't familiarize themselves with different firearms designs and their operation. I'm saying that that isn't the most critical aspect of training. A person who is familiar with two rules of safe firearms handling and has developed habits based on those two rules can pick up any handgun and handle it safely without having any idea what action type it is. Familiarity with all the different designs is good, but is far from the highest priority. The comment about the P320 was a joke, btw. That subject has been beat to death.
No worries on my end and apologies to you as well if I misunderstood. I dont want to derail Jim Watsons thread so Im going to bow out of this one.
Jim Watson
Member
Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is an appendix to a document titled:
Use of Force Interim Training For Private Citizen Concealed Carry
That's OK, Gem, familiarization with assorted different makes and models is also an element of real training.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days.
It seems the NJ 25 yard qualification distance endorses self-defense shootings at 25 yards, and would be a defense if one were accused of not retreating.
It seems the NJ 25 yard qualification distance endorses self-defense shootings at 25 yards, and would be a defense if one were accused of not retreating.
Come to think of it, the first two rules are most important, and don't just apply to carry un
der a permit. If you have a gun in your car, those rules still apply. If you have a gun you hunt with, they apply. If you have a gun in your nightstand or dresser drawer, those rules apply.
As for being able to hit something at a distance, everybody has to know their limitations. Somebody who can barely hit a silhouette at 3 yards shouldn't be trying to stop a bank robber across a crowded bank lobby. And they probably won't. And they don't have to. I read about a guy in Texas or Oklahoma that shot a potential cop killer from over 100 yards with a revolver. I'm not taking that shot, because I know my limitations.
I was at an instructor course years ago, and the training counselor mentioned he helped out an old lady in Walmart who was trying to buy ammunition for a revolver she had in her purse. She just knew she needed ammunition and was frustrated with the clerk because he didn't know what she needed. I guess she thought revolvers just all took the same kind of ammunition? So he asked nicely to see the gun, and saw it was a 22lr, and she was able to buy ammo.
A recent transplant from the Northeast was in our class. He said it was way too hard to get guns where he was from, but it was too easy here. Some of us were quick to point out that even without a lot of rules, we don't have an epidemic of old ladies accidentally shooting people with their purse guns.
We taught two rules. No more. I know that some instructors teach different versions. I believe four is the most common (that's what the official NRA curriculum teaches, if memory serves correctly), but I've heard three and five. They're all basically the same, just some use more words to get to the same conclusion.
