Tweet
While working out here in DC, I noticed this very good post from the VAIDPA group. A local NRA instructor posted a question about whether the NRA Basic Pistol course was sufficient to prepare his students for an armed encounter.
I'm actually conflicted about CCW issuance between ideas of individual liberty (any law-abiding citizen should get one) vs. needs for individual responsibility (general competence). Most CCW states' laws are written broadly enough that the applicant demonstrate some level of competence to get the permit. Should CA follow suit with the rest of the nation in regards to CCW, what do you think that level of competence should be?
----
>>Does anyone else believe that basic pistol is insufficient for CCW?
Law enforcement academies require 40 or more hours of handgun training
before sending a police officer out on the street with a gun.
Most of the big schools (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc.) teach a "level 1"
class that's 5 days long. Some offer a 3 day, 24 hour reduced version
and some offer 2 day weekend versions.
If you add the hours for Basic Pistol, PPITH and PPOTH that's 32 hours
minimum.
Those courses cover the topics that professional trainers think that gun
carriers should know.
Most states have requirements from 3-15 hours of training.
All the data and reports on armed citizen shootings that I've seen
generally fall into this category:
1) The shooter is generally untrained or minimally trained. Serious
students at gun schools that aren't in law enforcement or the military
rarely end up in a situation where gunfire is required. I credit this
to mindset. These people don't look like victims and have modified their
behavior and lifestyle to minimize their likelihood of attack. The one
exception to this is people living in Memphis, which has a high violent
crime rate. A lot of the crime is directed at innocent citizens, not
gang on gang as in other high crime areas. Tom Givens (instructor in
Memphis) has had 53 students involved in shootings in the past 5 years.
2) The attackers aren't expecting the victim to fight back and are not
interested in being in a fight. Thus when the victim fights back, even
if the quality of the counter attack is poor (missed shots), that
usually works. In most cases the distances are close and even yanked
shots are hitting or barely missing. Training does seem to make a
difference. Givens' data on his students shows that those that took his
Combative Pistol 1 course are hitting over 90% of their shots in real
fights, compared to a national average of 20-30% for law enforcement
officers.
3) What isn't happening, even in states with no training requirement,
are many incidents where "insufficient skill" is a clear cause of the
armed citizen's failure to survive the incident. Nor are there many
reports of negligent discharges in public. (There has been a disturbing
rise in self-inflicted gun shot wounds occurring at gun schools,
including many linked to use of the SERPA holster, however). The only
failures I can cite are two of Givens' students who were killed because
they were unarmed at the time they were attacked, and one similar case
in Dallas, TX a few years ago. We could probably count all the victims
at Ft. Hood in this category also, since Army regulations barred them
from carrying on base whether they had carry permits or not.
Basically the data shows that even a totally untrained person that has
the mindset to fight back and equipment to fight back with has better
odds than an unarmed, untrained person, and is at no greater risk for
failure during the incident. The biggest problem I see on a regular
basis is bad gunhandling, primarily from people who have been longtime
gun owners who have never had formal training and have gotten away with
bad habits for a long time. These people are the hardest to 'fix' and
many don't even try to correct their problems because (IMHO) they do not
believe that what they are doing is "bad" because it hasn't yet resulted
in anyone getting shot.
I'm actually conflicted about CCW issuance between ideas of individual liberty (any law-abiding citizen should get one) vs. needs for individual responsibility (general competence). Most CCW states' laws are written broadly enough that the applicant demonstrate some level of competence to get the permit. Should CA follow suit with the rest of the nation in regards to CCW, what do you think that level of competence should be?
----
>>Does anyone else believe that basic pistol is insufficient for CCW?
Law enforcement academies require 40 or more hours of handgun training
before sending a police officer out on the street with a gun.
Most of the big schools (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc.) teach a "level 1"
class that's 5 days long. Some offer a 3 day, 24 hour reduced version
and some offer 2 day weekend versions.
If you add the hours for Basic Pistol, PPITH and PPOTH that's 32 hours
minimum.
Those courses cover the topics that professional trainers think that gun
carriers should know.
Most states have requirements from 3-15 hours of training.
All the data and reports on armed citizen shootings that I've seen
generally fall into this category:
1) The shooter is generally untrained or minimally trained. Serious
students at gun schools that aren't in law enforcement or the military
rarely end up in a situation where gunfire is required. I credit this
to mindset. These people don't look like victims and have modified their
behavior and lifestyle to minimize their likelihood of attack. The one
exception to this is people living in Memphis, which has a high violent
crime rate. A lot of the crime is directed at innocent citizens, not
gang on gang as in other high crime areas. Tom Givens (instructor in
Memphis) has had 53 students involved in shootings in the past 5 years.
2) The attackers aren't expecting the victim to fight back and are not
interested in being in a fight. Thus when the victim fights back, even
if the quality of the counter attack is poor (missed shots), that
usually works. In most cases the distances are close and even yanked
shots are hitting or barely missing. Training does seem to make a
difference. Givens' data on his students shows that those that took his
Combative Pistol 1 course are hitting over 90% of their shots in real
fights, compared to a national average of 20-30% for law enforcement
officers.
3) What isn't happening, even in states with no training requirement,
are many incidents where "insufficient skill" is a clear cause of the
armed citizen's failure to survive the incident. Nor are there many
reports of negligent discharges in public. (There has been a disturbing
rise in self-inflicted gun shot wounds occurring at gun schools,
including many linked to use of the SERPA holster, however). The only
failures I can cite are two of Givens' students who were killed because
they were unarmed at the time they were attacked, and one similar case
in Dallas, TX a few years ago. We could probably count all the victims
at Ft. Hood in this category also, since Army regulations barred them
from carrying on base whether they had carry permits or not.
Basically the data shows that even a totally untrained person that has
the mindset to fight back and equipment to fight back with has better
odds than an unarmed, untrained person, and is at no greater risk for
failure during the incident. The biggest problem I see on a regular
basis is bad gunhandling, primarily from people who have been longtime
gun owners who have never had formal training and have gotten away with
bad habits for a long time. These people are the hardest to 'fix' and
many don't even try to correct their problems because (IMHO) they do not
believe that what they are doing is "bad" because it hasn't yet resulted
in anyone getting shot.
Comment