Minimal CCW Training

[SigsRule]

This discussion is talking about apples and oranges. Take drivers' license courses. A simple driver's ed course gets you a reduced insurance rate but isn't required to get a driver's license. Then you can spend a lot and go to one of the "racing" schools to get a race car driver's license.

It's an analogous situation to the discussion about levels of classes for CCW. Except having a driver's license isn't a right supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights while having firearms is supposed to be a right. Yet the "pivilege" doesn't require a class while the "right" does. Seems backwards.

I'm with the group that says the minimum class requirements per law to qualify for the CCW should be enough. High-Speed-Low-Drag shooters, just like the race car driver equivalent, should get the best follow-on training they can afford. Note the key use of the term follow-on training. No one should be required to take a LFI course or anything similar to qualify for what should be a right in the first place.

[Roger]

Well I won't argue the point. But, that being said, know this.

If you as a private citizen carry a gun, and are required to shoot someone, there will be an investigation. You and your level of training will be torn to shreds. And regardless of wether or not it was a good shoot or not, you still can be sued in civil court. Even police officers can be sued in civil court even though they are not prosecuted criminally or found at fault in an internal affairs investigation. I have seen it happen.

Often times the difference in the outcome of a civil liability suit rests with your ability to defend yourself to a bunch of people who know nothing about guns. Or to law enforcement investigators who are not sympathetic to your cause. As a result I would suspect that a person who meets the minimum requirements, just enough to check the box as they say, will stand a better chance of being sued.

Training is part of being prepared. Just like carrying a gun is part of being prepared. If you want to walk the streets of life with a minimal amount of training that's fine. But if and when you encounter something other then a static paper target, you may find you are not up to the challenge. And its as much about mind set and mental toughness as it is about firearms training. Additional and or advanced training may also prepare you for how to talk to police, or lawyers should you be involved in an incident. The NRA has acknowledged this fact by stating that there must be a legal liability section in the personal protection classes. Those sections must be taught by a lawyer or a certified police officer who can teach on liability issues.

Its not about being a high-speed operator, its about training enough to be alive at the end of the day.

Nobody is required to train above the basic level. Nobody will force you to do so. So do what you feel you should. And hopefully it will be enough.

[SigsRule]

As a result I would suspect that a person who meets the minimum requirements, just enough to check the box as they say, will stand a better chance of being sued.

There's no disagreement with everything you said except the quoted part above. You're going to be in danger of being sued no matter what level of training you've had. In fact, an aggressive lawyer could argue that getting more training shows you have an aggresive mindset and are deliberately going out looking for trouble. Lawyers can twist anything and you can be completely in the right and still be sued.

Still, I agree with you about training. I'm a believer in all the training you can afford coupled with plenty of practice. There's a half dozen well-thumbed books or more on my shelf by Ayoob, Suarez, and others on the preparation, mindset, and surviving a deadly force encounter. I shoot IDPA whenever I can (yes I know it's not real, but it is practice drawing and shooting under some stress). I'd love to go to some real life-based training like Suarez's. But more importantly I recognize my limitations when I carry for personal protection and operate in condition yellow avoiding rather than confronting situations that are iffy.

[Ranger353]

There's no disagreement with everything you said except the quoted part above. You're going to be in danger of being sued no matter what level of training you've had. In fact, an aggressive lawyer could argue that getting more training shows you have an aggresive mindset and are deliberately going out looking for trouble. Lawyers can twist anything and you can be completely in the right and still be sued...I recognize my limitations when I carry for personal protection and operate in condition yellow avoiding rather than confronting situations that are iffy.

I do not agree that more formal training makes you more at risk for being sued, it is your actions or inactions that set the circumstances for the encounter. Although under Colorado law you do not have a duty to retreat, the fact that you know this and still choose retreat as your first course of action will make a difference. Only after you choose retreat and the threat to you or others has not subsided can you say you were left with no other options. I understand that retreat is not always available and each person will have to make that decision themselves if, God forbid you have to make that decision.

Here's the bottom line: The last thing you need to be thinking about when you draw your weapon is "am I going to be sued?" If you have received solid formal training, like Roger is referring to, then when you do have to draw your weapon it is because there is a bona fide life or death fight at hand and you have to react fast. If you hesitate it may cost you more than the price of a training class.