Colorado CCW Training Warning

[Bailey Guns]

Agree 100%, Jumpstart.

I think additional training is a great idea for those who have the means to obtain it. But mandating some sort of state-required qualification course? Bad, bad idea. Who gets to decide how much training or proficiency is enough? Who's gonna pay for it? Who's gonna administer it? What about requalification? Or is passing one time good enough? If advanced training is that important, the argument can easily be made that in order to carry one must "qualify" quarterly...or more often. At what cost? "Sorry...you missed your quarterly quals. No permit for you. You'll need to reapply." I can't even imagine the potential bureaucratic nightmares.

This is a can or worms we don't need to open as there is no need. There is no evidence of any real problem to which this is a solution.

It's no different than outlawing "Saturday Night Specials". Not everyone has the means to buy a Sig or a Kimber. Who are we to say that a Jennings isn't good enough to protect someone if that's all they can afford?

This whole idea smacks of elitism.

[Batteriesnare]

I'll ask again though I know any answer will be based on "feelings" rather than fact...much like the post above. What evidence do you have that permit holders, regardless of their level of training, are: (1) A danger to themselves and everyone around them, (2) can't get their gun out of the holster without an AD (I prefer the term "negligent discharge"), or (3) will ever have the need to clear a "jam"?

Well, I will attempt to answer this with more than just "feelings." When I took my CCW class, which included several live fire exercises (I wouldn't consider one that did not) there was a student in the class who repeatedly had their finger on the trigger during draws/reholstering, and was continually scolded by the instructor. Thankfully there was not an "accidental" discharge, but I would submit that this individuals carelessness was a danger to the rest of us in the class. Further, this individual struggled to draw their weapon properly (as shown and drilled on in the class) and it was even dropped on the range. Likewise, during reholstering, the individual repeatedly would involve their nondominant hand, often with it in front of the business end in an attempt to return the weapon from whence it came. Now I'd like to point out that these errors happened in a CCW class WITH LIVE FIRE TRAINING! Fortunately, by the end of the class this individual was not making as many mistakes as when they started, but think of what may have transpired if the class was lecture only. I'm all for an armed society, but an armed society that does not have a solid knowledge base in their weapon can be more dangerous than good in some instances.

[Batteriesnare]

Agree 100%, Jumpstart.

I think additional training is a great idea for those who have the means to obtain it. But mandating some sort of state-required qualification course? Bad, bad idea. Who gets to decide how much training or proficiency is enough? Who's gonna pay for it? Who's gonna administer it? What about requalification? Or is passing one time good enough? If advanced training is that important, the argument can easily be made that in order to carry one must "qualify" quarterly...or more often. At what cost? "Sorry...you missed your quarterly quals. No permit for you. You'll need to reapply." I can't even imagine the potential bureaucratic nightmares.

While I agree that this would be an intense, potentially problematic process (especially at its beginning), I would submit that some form of proficiency may need to be demonstrated. Perhaps the requirement could be placed on the instructors before the certificate of completion is rendered, and if they do not comply, revoke their instructor certification.

For military and LEO, do they not have to qualify on a somewhat constant basis for firearm competency?

If someone is serious about being armed in public, wouldn't they (as well as the public around them) want the armed individual to have the skills to execute effectively should they need arise?

[Batteriesnare]

Also, just thought of something. What if when you went to renew your permit, thats when you had to re-qualify. Go to your certified trainer, shoot the required course, and turn it in with your renewal. I'm sure the argument will come up with one of my last points: LEO and Military have a greater propensity to use their weapons, and I concur, which is why a longer span in requalification would be acceptable.

[Bailey Guns]

OK...an isolated incident. And this person, as poorly as they handled the gun, didn't have an accident and didn't hurt anyone.

I've had a LOT of advanced firearms training and I've been a firearms instructor, either military, police or civilian for over 20 years. And I hate to admit it, but I've had a negligent discharge. In my house of all places. And it scared the hell outta me. But it was because I got complacent...not because of a lack of training. As a matter of fact, it happened DESPITE all the training I'd had.

Have you ever had a ND? If so, should you and I be disqualified from carrying a gun now? Am I one of those people who "pose a danger to everyone around" me because I had an accident?

Training is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't make any human being immune from making a mistake.

I can't think of any profession that requires more training, retraining, ongoing training and recurrent training than airline pilots (ok...maybe astronauts). Airline pilots sometimes get complacent and make mistakes and lots of people die because of it. You can't train all human error out of people.

[Batteriesnare]

OK...an isolated incident. And this person, as poorly as they handled the gun, didn't have an accident and didn't hurt anyone.

I've had a LOT of advanced firearms training and I've been a firearms instructor, either military, police or civilian for over 20 years. And I hate to admit it, but I've had a negligent discharge. In my house of all places. And it scared the hell outta me. But it was because I got complacent...not because of a lack of training. As a matter of fact, it happened DESPITE all the training I'd had.

Have you ever had a ND? If so, should you and I be disqualified from carrying a gun now? Am I one of those people who "pose a danger to everyone around" me because I had an accident?

Training is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't make any human being immune from making a mistake.

I can't think of any profession that requires more training, retraining, ongoing training and recurrent training than airline pilots (ok...maybe astronauts). Airline pilots sometimes get complacent and make mistakes and lots of people die because of it. You can't train all human error out of people.

I agree with you on a lot of what you've said, and please understand that at this point I agree that qualification for permits may be an answer looking for a problem, but I do see in the future it potentially becoming part of the CCW permit process. Although it may have been an isolated incident that I described, I hardly believe it was the only of its type, and since it has happened, it does open the door for discussion using real issues, as opposed to the "feelings" that were brought up earlier.

I will admit that I too have had a ND. For me it was in the woods, and it was because I didn't have proper training. I didn't understand the operation of the safety on the rifle I was carrying (please don't flame me, I know that the first safety is keeping your finger off the trigger, I was 7 at the time, 21 now). It scared the hell out of me as well, and got me a good talking to. I'm not saying that because you made a mistake you are disqualified, but I am saying that if you don't have sufficient training then you may make a mistake under pressure, such as would be presented in a life or death (lethal force) confrontation.

I also agree that training doesn't make a human mistake proof, but it does significantly decrease the likelyhood of a mistake. For example, why do you think insurance companies give a break on car insurance if you've had driver education? Because you've had instruction and real life (on road in this example) experience under the supervision of an instructor, and therefore are less likely to make a mistake that would require a claim. I know nothing is 100%, but the closer you can make it the better I would think it is.

[Bailey Guns]

This reminds me of the perpetual anti-gunner argument about issuing permits in the first place..."the streets will run red with the blood of innocents."

Really? I've heard that argument over and over, year after year. It's never come to pass despite the dire predictions of the anti-gun crowd. Despite the fact that the majority of states require only minimal training, if any at all, to get a permit. As a matter of fact, the number of accidental deaths caused by guns has been on a downward trend for many, many years.

Again...show me a compelling need for all this training and retraining. When I've seen proof there is a compelling need, based on verifiable facts, I'll change my opinion. But right now, it looks like our system is working just fine.

Until then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Sticks]

Thank the gods we have not had any incidents.

Granted there have been a few, but percentage wise it barely registers a tick on the scale.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of excellent instructors out there, and I am sure a majority of the students are getting the training that they need. I just had the unfortunate luck to select an instructor that barely covered the minimum, and spent a great deal of the class time pushing his personal political agenda and bragging.

I knew how to handle a firearm (grew up with them) when I took the class, and still sought out venues where I could get some training and work on the required skills. I took it upon myself to do additional research on the laws and the responsibilities of CC.

In the 1770's there was a gun in every house and every person in that house knew how to use it. When the RKBA was drafted, the aspect of gun safety, liability, ect... was a non issue. 230 odd years later, it (gun safety, responsibility, training, liability) is an issue because a majority of the citizens did not grow up with a firearm.

Absolutely, keep the feds out of the game. Educate the public, and maybe tightening up the requirements a bit to include range time among other items may not be such a bad idea.

[PsyKo]

i agree 120% that anyone handling a firearm should have knowledge of firearms and their specific firearm, but in no way should it be government mandated. the .gov is the reason fewer and fewer citizens of this country learn proper handling every year, they have already failed to properly educate people through their lives by vilifying gun owners to the point that many citizens dont even realize that it is legal for a civilian to own a firearm let alone carry one.


i would be willing to wager that all of congress could not run a McDonalds, yet so many people in this country are willing to let them run their lives.

[SA Friday]

I've also had ND's, but the training I've had ensured that I had the muzzle in a safe direction. A violation of one of the safety rules will happen to everyone who shoots firearms sooner or later. There are shooters who have ND'ed and there are shooters who are going to have a ND. A violation of two of the safety rules at the same time is when terminal bad ju-ju happens.