Colorado CCW Training Warning

[Bailey Guns]

It seems a lot of you miss the point that no one is arguing that continual, on-going, recurring training is a good thing. As long as it's an individual choice and not training standards that are devised, required and administered by the government.

[DeusExMachina]

I've discovered that this is a common liberal mindset. "Rights for me, but not for you." I get that a lot with left wingers I take shooting. Before we shoot, "guns are bad, but I'm curious". After shooting, "guns are awesome but I don't trust anyone else with them".

[SA Friday]

Can we let this thread die? Please.

This thread has made me contemplate more than any other thread on the site. It's obviously a black and white issue for you Bailey, but for many others, it's simply not. Instead of finding this thread difficult to digest, perhaps you should see it for what it really is, a focused platform for you to have input into one of the most highly debated issues of the CCW process. Both sides discussing this issue have merit, especially considering policy writers don't give a crap about statistics on the matter. If they did, there would be a lot more clear and logical decisions concerning gun laws in this country and state. In light of the amount of press and hubbub over incidents like the idiot that NDed at CU Fitzsimmons, the statistics really impact little to nothing in the law making process. The average citizen and politician simply don't care about what the numbers reflect and I would even go so far as to say they don't even pay attention to anything but what's flashed before their eyes by the TV and internet.

Perception counts and we don't have a friendly media. We also don't have much support in the scientific arena concerning conducting studies into this very issue. Short of Gary Kleck at the FSU Sociology department, the sociologist and criminologists have limited resources to study what the impact on shootings and incidents relating to CCWs would be based on the state's training requirements. The FBI Uniform Crime Report and the National Crime Victimization Survey are the two most utilized to do statistical analysis on firearms studies, and neither capture the data needed to analyze this topic. I have seen a few studies that hit on the fringes of this issue, but have yet to see an actual study that dwells into the issue being discussed. So, although there may very well be no statistical impact from a required minimum level of training, I have yet to see anything either supporting or refuting the claim. One can point to the general numbers of people with CCW's compared to how often we hear in the news of something like the CU ND, but this isn't comparing the amount of CCW induced firearm crimes/NDs from the various state training requirements. So, raw numbers from a single state is a basic numbers comparison within the same testing group. If you have seen an actual study involving this issue, I would love to see it and ask you please post info here to it.

Ultimately, your position is any requirements are too many, but the dangers of unintended consequences from this are just as dangerous (albeit different) as those from disregarding any potential information supporting a minimum training requirement would lessen the impact to gun rights in this country also. The biggest irony of this debate is most who support no training requirements also support showing IDs for voting.

This is a good thread.

[Irving]

I like to think of issues like this in the same way that I consider discussions of smoking, alcohol, and legalized drugs. In short, alcohol is very legal in this country, but there are VERY strong social pressures to use responsibly. I would go as far as saying that the negative social stigma of abusing drugs and alcohol have a much greater effect on their use than the actual laws written to prevent their misuse.

Similarly, I can imagine a world where live firearms training is not required by a state or federal law, but it is socially encouraged on such a strong level by those in the community, that more people seek training than don't. The argument to this would be to point out that not all gun owners run in the same crowd, as evidenced by the very strong social pressures to clean up and shoot in a safe manner at public shooting ranges, yet many of those places are trashed and considered unsafe by many shooters.

[centrarchidae]

Once upon a time I thought we needed a strict training requirement, including a qualification like the POST course of fire (which frankly isn't all that strict. I could finish a cigarette during the time allotted.). I thought we needed it to head off neighborhoods looking like war zones from all of the stray rounds.

I've outgrown that, when I saw the half-assed pencil-whipped crap that Gunsmoke and others have foisted on the public, and the (lack of) carnage and crime and disorder that followed. The problem just never actually showed up.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, Friday, you're right. It is a B&W issue for me. And I'll admit, especially in today's political climate, I tend to take my rights seriously. Especially my right to defend my family and myself.

Do people who use guns sometimes make mistakes? Of course they do. But you can't train "human" out of the equation. That's why the most highly trained in any field - not just related to carrying guns - oftentimes make mistakes that hurt or kill those who didn't deserve to be hurt or killed. And your point about politicians not caring about statistics is certainly open for debate. I frequently hear anti-gun politicians spouting statistics (usually false or flat out lies) that support their anti-gun law du jour. Furthermore, I think your assertion would tend to support the "less strict" side of the training argument - bureaucrats don't know what is needed so why would you want them mandating training requirements?

Anecdotal evidence of minimally trained or those having no formal training in the defensive use of guns, especially handguns, suggests this "class" (in reference to their level of training) of people uses handguns effectively many times per day to protect themselves. Overwhelmingly, their efforts are successful and no one is harmed...unless it's the bad guy. Sure, most are probably not truly CCW-related. But it's really not that much different.

Until I see evidence to the contrary I'll continue to advocate that everyone who chooses to carry a handgun should seek out as much professional, competent instruction as their means will allow on a voluntary basis. I will continue to argue against further government intrusion and more restrictive government-mandated standards for concealed carry. I will continue to assert that state standards as they are now are sufficient and don't need to be changed...unless we go to a "constitutional carry" system.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Yeah, Friday, you're right. It is a B&W issue for me. And I'll admit, especially in today's political climate, I tend to take my rights seriously. Especially my right to defend my family and myself.

Do people who use guns sometimes make mistakes? Of course they do. But you can't train "human" out of the equation. That's why the most highly trained in any field - not just related to carrying guns - oftentimes make mistakes that hurt or kill those who didn't deserve to be hurt or killed. And your point about politicians not caring about statistics is certainly open for debate. I frequently hear anti-gun politicians spouting statistics (usually false or flat out lies) that support their anti-gun law du jour. Furthermore, I think your assertion would tend to support the "less strict" side of the training argument - bureaucrats don't know what is needed so why would you want them mandating training requirements?

Anecdotal evidence of minimally trained or those having no formal training in the defensive use of guns, especially handguns, suggests this "class" (in reference to their level of training) of people uses handguns effectively many times per day to protect themselves. Overwhelmingly, their efforts are successful and no one is harmed...unless it's the bad guy. Sure, most are probably not truly CCW-related. But it's really not that much different.

Until I see evidence to the contrary I'll continue to advocate that everyone who chooses to carry a handgun should seek out as much professional, competent instruction as their means will allow on a voluntary basis. I will continue to argue against further government intrusion and more restrictive government-mandated standards for concealed carry. I will continue to assert that state standards as they are now are sufficient and don't need to be changed...unless we go to a "constitutional carry" system.

Bailey, you kick some serious ass. That is the most succinct explanation of how I feel about concealed carry in Colorado I've ever read.

[Frank Howell]

Bailey you do make some great points. First, carrying, and personal defence is a RIGHT. No two ways about it. And government should not be allowed to stand in the way of that right, like IL does. Please don't take me for a gun hating liberal who believes that politicians of all people should be implementing training standards.

Irving made a great point that it would be great if social pressure/encouragement would drive people who carry to obtain more training, however the reality of the thing is that there is a serious social stigma about guns. "Polite people don't discuss such things." While I have no real data to back this up, my feeling is that the majority of the people who own guns have no formal firearms instruction beyond what the salesman told them when they bought the gun, which is minimal at best. I base this solely on personal observation.

I do not believe that the lack of training will suddenly create bullet riddled neighborhoods. It hasn't yet, and there is no reason to think it will. Granted, most RESPONCIBLE gun owners will seek out formal instruction. The problem is that not all gun owners are responcible. I used to have a co-worker who was bright as computer geeks go. He had a wife, big house down in CO Springs, and raised 2 daughters. By all rights, a responcible man. We worked side by side for over 10 years, and he was well aware of my background in weapons instruction, yet he'd bought a Glock in .40 S&W, and had it for 8 years before he ever thought to ask me to go shoot with him. He'd actually owned that gun for 8 years, and never even loaded the thing.

The hard fact of the matter is, that the majority of the people out there are all about exercising their rights, but they don't have the drive to exercise those rights responcibly.

One last point, then I'll hop down from my soap box. The big thing I think that the CO law should require, is training in the Colorado statutes governing Use of Force, and firearms. This is what Utah requires, and it makes since. When you carry a gun for personal defense, you are walking a very fine line in the eye's of the law. You have to know the law in order to stay on the right side of that fine line.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't take you for a gun-hating liberal, Frank. I'm hoping you'll forgive me but this topic is one that can really get my blood boiling.

I was, until recently (allowed the cert to expire as there just isn't much demand), certified by BCI to teach the UT course. Yes, it's a state mandated curriculum. But it really doesn't cover anything more than the basics...in my opinion, the absolute minimum that any instructor in CO should be teaching anyway without a state-mandated curriculum. But UT recommends this information be passed along in a 4-hour class and UT doesn't require live fire. Some of the safety information in the UT curriculum is pretty dated, too. I don't see it as much different than what CO requires.

I can tell you we (my business partner and I) conduct a CCW class that is easily 9 or 10 hours long and we focus primarily on mindset and legal issues...some of the things you appear to advocate. I DO NOT believe live fire should be a requirement for a basic CCW class for many reasons.

We use a firearms simulator...it's a shoot/no-shoot judgmental training simulator similar to those used by the military and law enforcement. I find it far more valuable than the live fire most people will receive in a basic CCW class. We induce a lot of stress and we give students, most of whom have never been in a lethal force encounter, the opportunity to see first-hand how quickly normal, every-day situations can evolve into a life-threatening scenario. It's a real eye-opener for most people and our class is oftentimes the first opportunity they've had to really think about developing a proper "combat mindset".

I also have concerns with state-mandated training, especially when it comes to required live-fire, for people with disabilities or other limited mobility. People with these issues have the same rights, and needs, concerning self-defense as the rest of us. I can also foresee state-mandated training requirements leaving a lot of these folks behind. People with limited means...that have only a Bryco budget...are another area of concern. Does someone not have the right to self-defense if they can't afford to receive the required, state-mandated training and requalifications? I've seen lots of folks that could barely afford an $80 pistol and a box of ammo who were genuinely concerned about their safety and the safety of their families. As a matter of fact, Rev Leon Kelly of Denver recently attended one of our classes and that was his main concern...the ability of honest, law-abiding folks who live in "bad areas" of town to legally and effectively protect themselves from the violence around them.

And if the state requires "qualification" and "requalification" on a recurring basis, what will this do to the cost of training? What size of state-level bureaucracy will be required to administer this training? Frankly, I think we have too much bureaucracy and government already...with the resulting cluster-fucks. I don't want to see it extended into firearms training for citizens.

No, I think we're overburdened with government requirements in every aspect of our lives. I don't think we need to ask for more.

[TheBelly]

I have to chime in on this:

the army requires annual re-certification on firearms proficiency. That goes for whatever your primary weapon might be, be it rifle/carbine or light machine gun. Same thing for those that are authorized a pistol. Most feel that that is not enough training/re-training. Dependent upon your job in the military, more range time is available. Think about a couple things, though, before that gets used as a model for others. The army is required to go places and possibly take lives in the course of doing their job. The army also accepts a training standard of 23 hits out of 40 possible (standard rifle qual). That minimum standard of accuracy can only be acceptable in war. There is a certain amount of collateral damage that is accepted as part of that job.

In the civilian world, the law WILL hold a shooter accountable for every round fired. And, if a citizen is put into the situation that needs deadly force as the only avenue, I hope that the person defending themself/family/friends/etc. has a firm grasp. I think too many folks are comfortable with adventure learning. Besides, if you're firing 40 rounds in your self defense shoot, you have bigger problems to worry about.

If we take the same concept and apply it differently: lots of cabs have a sign on th back that has the break down of cab costs vs. DUI costs. (Im not going to get into the 'they just want your business' bit). If that mind set is applied to other areas, like defensive shooting, then I think the level of firearms proficiency would rise to the level that would make someone comfortable enough that they could actually defend themself, should the need arise. The average citizen might be swayed into voluntarily getting a higher level of proficiency by understanding that their freedom can end with the barrel of that gun. The internal thought I'm getting at here is getting the resonsibly armed citizen to realize their own abilities (or lack of) and to have the internally motivated belief that "I do not have a good enough proficiency to hit what I'm aiming at". Some folks here have shot with me at the ipsc/uspsa shoots, and I generally only ask two questions: did I shoot what needed shooting, and did I hit any no-shoot targets? I get really bent out of shape when I fail either of those.

this is only meant to post my thoughts on the physical skill of shooting. It is not meant to tackle the topic of shoot/no-shoot. It is also not meant to tackle the topic of internal mindset a person needs to pull the trigger.