Your thoughts on ccl before ability to operate firearm

[sideways]

Hello all, I have recently been accused of being harsh in a reply I made to a post now looking back maybe I was I would like to here from you on what you think is best, should people start carrying firearms that have not yet mastered the use of, I am well aware that there is a introduction to firearm carry in CCL class but we all know that these instructors do not have time nor resource to make each student little more than acquainted with there carry arms so my question is do you start carrying and then spend the range time to become proficient with your firearm ,I got a bud that got his CCL he literally could not hit a full size silhouette target regularly first time we went to range since he has improved greatly but I am sure that in a high stress situation he might have done more harm to himself or someone else and surely not have defended himself or someone else had the occasion arose when he first got CCL so lets hear your input.

 

[Guillermo]

with power comes responsibility

just because he CAN carry he should not until he is both mentally and physically able to operate the weapon responsibly.

BTW, I think this thread should probably be moved as it is not auto-loader specific

 

[oneounceload]

I am also in favor of intelligence tests to be able to vote, breed and own guns - guess that makes me an outcast among the purists - however, all three of those activities require intelligence, insight, and common sense to do properly.

If we have to prove all of those characteristics to drive a car, maybe it's not so unrealistic with the other major life responsibilities

 

[zoom6zoom]

"shall not be infringed".

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Sure, ideally everyone should train and practice with the gun they will carry. But how do you define when one has "mastered" it? This is something that should be left up to the individual. Also remember that in the vast majority of defensive handgun usages, no shots are actually fired. I am not in favor of making training (beyond the relatively simple requirements of a CCW class) mandatory by statute for everyone. Compared to the potential for abuse of such laws, I will take a few people being poor shots.

 

[Guillermo]

The power to regulate is the power to deny

I cannot disagree with Oneounce more.

Again, just because we have the right to do something does not mean that we should do so.

He should be competent in the name of personal responsibility

 

[DannyZRC]

I'm with "shall not be infringed". the cost of freedom is freedom, it is a sword that cuts both ways.

 

[Zundfolge]

...should people start carrying firearms that have not yet mastered the use of...

Define "mastered the use of".

Some would consider being able to pass a simple police qualifying as "mastered" ... some would contend that until you hit IPSC "Master" status you've not "mastered" your gun.

The propensity for abuse by bureaucrats would mean that eventually antis would skew the minimum requirements so that maybe Jerry Miculek would qualify.



Honestly sometimes I think we really over complicate the whole gun thing ... as long as someone knows the 4 rules and the basics restrictions on use of their permit, that's all they really need.

 

[JEB]

i would want to be at least decent with my carry gun before i started carrying it. i wasnt a GREAT shot when i started carrying but i continued to practice and am still getting better. i would say that you should be very framiliar with your carry gun and have at least some skill at ranges from cntact distance to 15 yards.

 

[dec41971]

Most self defense situations are close quarters where its just point and shoot and no time to aim. I doubt the guy would do significantly worse than a trained and well practiced shooter.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I will take a few people being poor shots....

How about when he misses the guy he's shooting at and hits you or someone you love instead?

Most self defense situations are close quarters where its just point and shoot and no time to aim. I doubt the guy would do significantly worse than a trained and well practiced shooter.

Having trained with some trained and well practiced shooters, I'd disagree.

I see atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship regularly at the range. Guys are poking holes all over those large, B-27 silhouettes, at seven yards, slow fire in a non-stress environment. On the street carrying guns they are a menace.

The reason they're getting lousy hits is that they haven't learned trigger control and are jerking the trigger. Aiming or not aiming isn't really an issue at seven yards. If you just point it roughly at the center of the target you'll get decent hits as long as you don't mash the trigger. But the guys who have mastered trigger control will hit the target at close range, even without careful aim and at high speed.

 

[nwilliams]

There's no substitute for quality training and lots of practice.

I think one of the biggest mistake some people make is to think that simply having a gun on you is all the protection you need. If you are going to carry a gun for protection then you need to be proficient with it and if you can't get proper training then you better practice a lot.

It's not about just being able to aim your gun like you do on the range, there's a difference between target practice and practicing self defense shooting. If you are carrying concealed then you need to practice drawing from concealment, especially from the manner in which you most often carry. For example women who carry a handgun in their purse need to practice drawing from their purse, they can't be digging around for their gun when they are suddenly confronted with a threat. If you carry under a shirt then you need to practice drawing from under your shirt, or for those who carry in their pocket you need to practice drawing from your pocket. Also the weather can cause you to change the way you dress and thus change the manner in which you carry concealed and how you draw.

Perhaps more important than being able to aim with your sights is the ability to aim simply through body memorization, you will only have seconds (if that) to assess the situation and react to the threat accordingly. Being a good shot on the range is a plus but in a high stress life or death situation you are not going to be as relaxed as you are when at the range just having fun.

Also keep in mind that you are just as susceptible to Murphy's Law in a gun fight as you are in any situation. For example you're gun can jam, it can get snagged on clothing as you draw, you can forget to take the safety off, you can empty the whole mag and miss on every shot and need to reload, you can hit an innocent bystander in the background, the list goes on. Training and practice can help you avoid these potential problems and maybe save your life.

Just my 2¢

 

[warnerwh]

I'm going to have to say that what I consider well trained will consistently do better than a beginner or anyone with only a couple thousand rounds or so of practice. Over the years I've practiced point shooting at the range, woods and at home. So much I don't even know. I know I can point and shoot instantly into a small area and use no sights. However I must say how one reacts to the situation emotionally is also very important. Some people are completely freaked out and others keep their head well.

There are numerous people here who have practiced with handguns for decades and have fired many thousands of rounds not including dry firing practice. These people are far superior to anyone like a beginner. A handgun is not easy to hit with. Even at close range the better trained people are more likely to stop the fight more quickly. It's surprising how many people miss many shots at only ten feet in a gun fight. The training is what you will do automatically when there is no time to think about it. That's why SWAT teams as well as many others like the military practice a lot.

 

[GLOOB]

I totally disagree with the mastery part. As long as someone can practice good gun safety, that's all I care about, and even then I don't REALLY care if Joe Schmuck is 100% safe. The rules of CCW mean Joe Schmuck is never going to be handling a gun in proximity of me unless in a rare case where I'll probably be at least >50% glad he at least has a gun. Only other scenarios where I'd be near him while he's handling a gun:

1. he's illegally brandishing
2. we're at a shooting range, where CCW doesn't matter, anyway.
3. we're in a private residence where he's playing with a gun. I.e., I'm friends with this idiot, and that's MY problem.

As for marksmanship, I also don't care. If Joe Smuck is shooting into a crowd of innocent people, that's a judgment issue, not a "gun mastery" issue. If he empties a 15 round magazine at an imminent threat and misses most/all shots, then he's still on par with the average police officer! And consider that in a scenario where someone needs to defend themselves with a gun, 99% of the time they're alone, to begin with, which is part of the reason why drawing is justified. There's little reason to think you'll ever need to defend yourself with a gun in the middle of a crowd of people. Some may daydream of being the "sheep dog" that saves the mall full of grateful citizens. But most people carry to protect themselves and their family, only. And even IF that scenario occurs, think about it. Wouldn't you prefer if someone had been carrying at Virginia Tech, even if they were a bad shot?

Also consider this. Do you want criminals in your area to know that any layperson might be carrying, including granny with the cataracts and the shakes? Or that just an elite few are allowed the privilege?

The key here is judgment. You can't test judgment. Like there's no way a drivers test is going to stop the few bad people who will end up driving drunk/recklessly/road-raging/road-racing as soon as no one is watching.

 

[bigfatdave]

Also consider this. Do you want criminals in your area to know that any layperson might be carrying, including granny with the cataracts and the shakes? Or that just an elite few are allowed the privilege?

GLOOB makes a lot of good points, but this one is the trump card. (along with "shall not be infringed" of course)

Honestly, someone can be taught basic defensive handgunning in a few afternoons with some dry-fire at home. Everything after that is great, but the basics aren't that hard.

 

[easyg]

I do not support any form of firearms regulation.
Creating a test or a standard that must be met is just another method of regulating who can and who cannot own and carry firearms.
Doing so would serve no purpose other than to limit the Constitutional freedoms we have as U.S. citizens.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Ah yes --

"Training? We ain't go no training. We don't need no stinkin' training."

I'm not sure how afraid many criminals are of "granny with the shakes", no matter how well armed she might be. And the 2nd Amendment is not a license to endanger the community.

As Jeff Cooper used to say, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."

 

[The Bushmaster]

"Shall not be infringed"...It is the gun owner's responsibility to get the necessary training and not the CCW instructor's responsibility...

 

[CoRoMo]

Maybe guns should be banned. They are too complicated and dangerous for citizens to own.

 

[Wadero]

Thomas Jefferson said something really witty about accepting the inconveniences of too much liberty as opposed to what happens when there is not enough.

Does someone have to spend thousands of dollars on ammo and classes from people who write article in gun magazine to carry a gun? I have a great uncle that defended his house with a 30.06 bolt action rifle.... I think the only person that taught him how to use it was... well, him.

Should someone attempt to prepare themselves as best as they can for the unthinkable? Of course. Should they be required? Absolutely not.

And whoever said the thing about intelligence tests; I hope you were being sarcastic. Otherwise they should put an ignorance filter on the intrawebs.

 

[SSN Vet]

You can't test judgment.

I agree and disagree....

There's certainly no (reliable at least) Myers-Briggs type good judgement test.

but....

You can discern an individuals judgement via. the "test" of time...
Are they getting into trouble with the law?
Have they been fired from seven jobs in a row becasue they steel from the company?
Have they "earned" a Big Chicken Dinner from one of the armed services? (you pretty much have to commit murder to get a dishonorable discharge these days)
Have they been committed to a mental health institution because they're a danger to themselves and others?

Pretty much all the questions on your standard CCW application.

The problem is that tracking peoples demostrated bad judgement is very difficult.

Once upon a time they'd have branded an "T" on someone and that would make it pretty easy.

 

[atomd]

Any form of regulation would be just a step towards denying someone their rights. First you need a class, then you need an exam, and you need to be able to afford to pay for them. Then the class is only held every 3rd tuesday of every month beginning with the letter S and it's 200 miles away from you. Sure, while they may not exactly prevent someone from exercising one of their rights, they can sure discourage it once you give them the power. Once you open the door for them, they are inside and there to stay. They will peck and peck and peck until it becomes a heavy burden. That's how government works.

Personal responsibility is of critical importance... but unfortunately it's something we seem to be losing touch with.

 

[Wadero]

SSN vet, I understand where you are coming from but read the words in your signature line!

....RKBA and this right shall never be questioned!

Its a very fine line when you start picking and choosing who gets what rights. It gets taken away from people that have commited violent crimes... sure that seems reasonable.

What about someone that has committed one of the many levels of assault? Or has a DUI? The line gets hazy and pretty soon regular people are left without a means to defend themselves.

 

[CoRoMo]

I am also in favor of intelligence tests to ... own guns...

Who should define the pass/fail level of that test? Government, right?

...we have to prove all of those characteristics to drive a car, maybe it's not so unrealistic with the [strike]other major life responsibilities [/strike] unalienable God-given rights that every free man has.

I think that is what you meant to post.

 

[shockwave]

Any form of regulation would be just a step towards denying someone their rights

Some people should have their rights denied. Violent felons, the mentally ill, non-US citizens, children, etc. However, citizens in good standing can exercise their right to own a firearm. The question here posed by the OP regarding a person obtaining a CWP prior to developing skill with a firearm is straightforward in my book - yes, it's perfectly all right.

Here, I apply the violent spouse (or significant other, etc.) rule: A woman has separated from her husband and has custody of the children. He informs her that he's going to kill her and the kids and "there's nothing you can do about it."

So she needs to be able to get a gun quickly, with a minimum of hassles, and will need to carry it. Every barrier she encounters in the process of securing her safety is a risk to her life.

My personal standard is quite different. I didn't buy a real (non-training) sword until I had several years of regular study and practice and was certain that I knew exactly how to use it well. It was my reward for sticking with the arduous process of developing a complex skill. Same thing with firearms:

There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully