General Categories > Information Arsenal

Nebraska State CCW Course…

(1/6) > >>

JTH:
Over the last couple of years, I periodically see commentary by people who have recently taken their state CCW course, talking about what they learned, how they did, etc.

And every once in awhile, I read something that makes me wince a little.  Sometimes it is a story from their instructor that incorrectly applies a law, sometimes it is a picture of the target from their qualification where the official target wasn't used, sometimes it is from someone's advertising for their class in which they tell people to bring 30 rounds which means they aren't fulfilling the NSP's requirements for practice prior to the firearms qualification.   The problem isn't ever the student, the problem is what is being taught in the class.

It occurred to me that perhaps many people don't know that the list of topics required in the curriculum for the course, along with the qualification course of fire, is available online as part of the NSP rules and regulations. 

So, I wrote about it, and included the link.  Even if you have already gone through the class, keeping a copy of the regs is a handy thing, because you can use it to answer any questions you might have about anything you might need to do with respect to following the laws for CCW in Nebraska.  (Such as changing your address, losing a permit, what form you have to send in to report injuries or damage, etc.)  If you haven't been to the class---it'll give you an idea of what should be covered in the class, so you can make sure that you are getting the information that you paid for.

https://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/nebraska-state-ccw-course/

Make sure that the class you are taking is taught by someone who is teaching all the curriculum, and that your test results (and firearms qualification) are valid.  You don't want to end up in a story like this one:

http://www.news-herald.com/article/HR/20150525/NEWS/150529711

Captdad17:
I recently completed my training and was very impressed.  Not just with what was taught about safety, fundamentals, and legal ramifications, but everything else that goes into carrying a concealed weapon.

<climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon.  Don't get me wrong, I know it's our right and boneheaded felons and wife-beaters out there lose that right, but there are some people, law-abiding people, that do more harm than good.  We've all heard the stories about the guy who uses his weapon to defend his property or the show-off who fires a shot into the wall as he's showing his buddy his new piece.  I feel that carrying is something that has to be earned, by demonstrating you're willing to train, to learn, to accept the consequences of what will happen to you and your family if you ever encounter a situation where deadly force is required and you choose to use it.  It's a responsibility that's not to be taken lightly and so far, I've been impressed with the members of this forum as I have not gotten the impression to the contrary.
<climbs down from soapbox>

The training that everyone gets when carrying concealed should make them stop and think about what they are getting themselves into.  As a prior military cop, I know it all too well.  I've seen it first hand.  Expect to be arrested, expect to lose your weapon, expect to go through a living hell.  If you think then when you shoot the bad guy, you'll find yourself wrapped in a comfy blanket in the back of an ambulance sipping hot coffee while the cops around you are trying to console you, you need to quit watching TV.  The real world isn't like that.

There is no "fast track" as the article that jthhapkido posted pointed out.  In fact, an 8-hour class doesn't even do it justice.  Be prepared to commit, to train, to study, and realize that now that you carry a concealed weapon, your life with change forever.  You are now a sheepdog.  If you can't handle that, it's ok to be a sheep.

JTH:

--- Quote from: Captdad17 on May 02, 2016, 05:45:26 AM ---I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon. 

--- End quote ---

Agreed.  Many people aren't ready for the responsibility, don't want it, or have made conscious choices about what they can live with in terms of how they will act.  (Whether they are realistic or not is separate from the decisions they have made currently.)


--- Quote ---Don't get me wrong, I know it's our right and boneheaded felons and wife-beaters out there lose that right, but there are some people, law-abiding people, that do more harm than good.  We've all heard the stories about the guy who uses his weapon to defend his property or the show-off who fires a shot into the wall as he's showing his buddy his new piece.
--- End quote ---

True, but....the reason those get made into such a huge deal is based on how rarely they occur. 


--- Quote ---I feel that carrying is something that has to be earned, by demonstrating you're willing to train, to learn, to accept the consequences of what will happen to you and your family if you ever encounter a situation where deadly force is required and you choose to use it.
--- End quote ---

That, however, I disagree with strongly---because I don't think people should have to "earn" the right to defend themselves.

I see a LOT of people at the range that I wouldn't want to be using a gun in the same bay as myself, much less in public.  I find many people have no concept of actual safety practice, and many people have wildly over-inflated views of their own skills.

NONE of that, to me, makes any difference as to whether or not I think they should be able to own the tools that will allow them to effectively defend themselves.

The way I think about it is this:

1) Everyone has the right to self-defense.
2) If you have the right to self-defense, then you have a right to the most effective tools for self-defense. 

If you don't let people use effective tools, you are saying that some people (older, weaker, smaller, handicapped, etc) don't have the right to self-defense, because they need those tools.

If someone says that people need to prove something before they can be allowed to have those tools, then they are saying people have to prove that they deserve a right.  Or prove that their "need" is sufficient for something that is a right.

This is separate from whether or not I'd REALLY REALLY REALLY like it if more people would actually get training.  Safety training, firearm skills training, self-defense training (which is a lot more than "how to use a self-defense tool") ---- I really wish that everyone who has a gun (of any type) would get good, quality training.

But I personally would never say that they have to get training or prove that they'd had training before they are allowed to have what they need to effectively defend themselves.


--- Quote ---You are now a sheepdog.  If you can't handle that, it's ok to be a sheep.

--- End quote ---

I've got to admit, I hate the sheepdog/sheep terminology, because I can't stand all the nonsense that Grossman made up.  When he first started doing his talks, I read his book and really got into a lot of what he said.  As time went by, parts of it started to make less sense to me, and as research showed that not only was he incorrect but making up a lot of stuff that research didn't say, the whole area started to really grate on my nerves.

One of the major reasons for that is the idea of a "sheepdog" -- because we aren't.  We aren't there to protect "the sheep"  --- not only is that not our job, but we don't have the legal cover for doing it that LEOs have. 

And calling people who may not understand the concepts of self-defense "sheep" isn't going to make any friends, and more importantly, isn't going to get them to start thinking differently.  Not only that, but plenty of people who are clueless about self-defense concepts find, when it comes down to it, that they CAN defend themselves.  (Obviously it is much easier, and you are much more likely to be safe, if you have training, understand the law, and are paying attention.)

I personally think that everyone should have access to the tools we have deemed effective for self-defense purposes.  If we say that someone can't, then we are saying that they don't deserve to be able to defend themselves. 

IMO.

SS_N_NE:

--- Quote from: jthhapkido on May 03, 2016, 02:38:15 PM ---Many people aren't ready for the responsibility,
--- End quote ---

To choose their own life or death?

Survival is a natural right...self-defense aids survival.

No one should determine your right to survival except you. Hammer-fist, pointy stick or gun, what difference does it make how you survive? The threat you determined has attempted to end your survival has been eliminated. You survive.

The problem comes from "I think" since that always seems to lead to "there should be a law".

If a person wants to enhance their survival, then they should train with what ever tools they hope will assist their survival. Carrying a weapon does not ensure survival. Even being well trained with a weapon does not ensure survival.

My point: We don't need the CCW. We don't need the training classes. We don't need more laws. There are enough law to deal with pretty much everything already. If someone wants to enhance their survival with a weapon...then they should seek training. But, the laws, rules, regulations and "people should" snobbery should all go away. Having State law, training and everything else doesn't change a thing in a legitimate case of survival.

Mali:

--- Quote from: SS_N_NE on May 04, 2016, 08:28:51 PM ---To choose their own life or death?

--- End quote ---

Unfortunately, yes.

What he saying is that although we all have the right to defend ourselves, many people just aren't ready to stand up and do it themselves. They have the right to defend themselves, but some people expect others do it for them and thus are not well prepared to do it if the need arises.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page