so please stop since your information is inflammatory, incorrect, and untrue to say the least.
OK, I'll apologize for the tone of my post. I've had a REALLY nasty head cold all week, and your post sort of tripped my switch for a number of reasons. Sorry for coming across as rude...
I'll cop to the "inflammatory" accusation. I did come on sort of strong...
But I will not stand for being called a liar. Nothing in my post was incorrect or untrue. As we so often say on this forum, "
cite please"...
For the record, I'm NOT anti-CC. In fact, I'm a HUGE proponent of EVERYONE who carries (OC or CC) taking a Concealed Carry course specific to their state, so they can learn the laws about self defense, continuum of force, and "prohibited places". I personally hold a CHP in my home state (NC) as well as a PA LTCF and a Utah non-resident CFP. I carry concealed about 50% of the time in the winter (because clothing forces me to), and about 10-20% of the time in warm weather. I'm currently working toward getting certified as a CHP Instructor in NC, and I am the Campus Coordinator for SCCC at the university I am currently attending as a graduate student.
I'm not attacking you because you mentioned CC. I like CC. I like people who CC. I like the idea of CC.
I was merely criticizing your use of the term CCW, because it is inaccurate, confusing, and carries a lot of negative baggage for the non-gunnie public.
As you may have deduced, I'm on a personal mission to eradicate the use of the term "CCW" among educated, informed gun owners, and I was just a little taken aback when an instructor used it. If ANYONE should know better, it's an instructor. As an instructor, you are on the front lines of the CC and OC movement, and your words will be taken to heart by your students. Your certifications and training carry with them tremendous authority in the eyes of your students, and so you owe it to them to use accurate, correct, and realistic terminology.
You should avoid using incorrect terms, that's all I'm saying. Let me explain:
The acronym "CCW" is not used in ANY state's statutes, codes, or regulations to describe a permit, license, or endorsement to legally carry a concealed weapon. States use terms like "CHP" (Concealed Handgun Permit), "LTCF" (License to Carry a Firearm), CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit), and a myriad of other alphabet soup, but there is not a single state or municipality in the nation that uses the acronym "CCW" to describe a permit, license, or endorsement to legally carry concealed.
The ONLY place that the acronym "CCW" or the phrase "Carrying a Concealed Weapon" appears in statute or code in ANY state is in the definitions of the VIOLATION of illegally carrying concealed without a proper permit.
For some reason, the gun press and many instructors insist on using this acronym to describe lawful concealed carry. I will never understand why, because it is inaccurate, confusing, and the acronym CCW carries a lot of negative baggage to people who are not familiar (or sympathetic) to 2A rights, or firearms law.
I would suggest that when people talk about Concealed Carry-related topics, they use "CC" to describe Concealed Carry, like we use OC to describe Open Carry. We don't call it OCW, and for good reason. Using the word "Weapon" when speaking about lawful carry (in any configuration) has a LOT of scary, negative connotations for the general public. It sounds "military". It sounds "criminal". It sounds like like it's a tool to be used for offense, not DEFENSE.
If you want to discuss the particular permit, license, or endorsement of your state, then please use the terminology used in your state's Statute. In NC, we call them CHP (concealed Handgun Permit). In PA, it's called a LTCF (License to Carry a Firearm).
And in YOUR state, you don't get a special little card like most states. You get an "endorsement" on your Drivers License, and the Statute calls your "permit" a "Concealed Carry Endorsement". So the accurate acronym for your state is "CCE".
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000101.htm
MRS §571.101. 1. All applicants for concealed carry endorsements issued pursuant to subsection 7 of this section must satisfy the requirements of sections 571.101 to 571.121. If the said applicant can show qualification as provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, the county or city sheriff shall issue a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement. Upon receipt of such certificate, the certificate holder shall apply for a driver's license or nondriver's license with the director of revenue in order to obtain a concealed carry endorsement. Any person who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement on a driver's license or nondriver's license and such endorsement or license has not been suspended, revoked, canceled, or denied may carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or within a vehicle. A concealed carry endorsement shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance or renewal. The concealed carry endorsement is valid throughout this state.
Sure, this makes talking about permits on a nation-wide forum a little tricky, because every state has their own little code-word for their particular permit.
But NO state calls their permit a "CCW". Period. End of discussion...
FBI statistics illustrate these facts:
Up close and personal, 75% of attacks within 21 feet.
They'll be violent....if they weren't, you wouldn't need your firearm.
They'll be fast...3 seconds and the initial attack is over.
Most violent crimes, burglaries, and others in the self-defense needed categories will be in low-light/no-light environments...making sights difficult to use.
They WILL likely require multiple shots. One shot just won't get it done in most cases. (shotguns in the home may be an exception)
Head shots stop the threat 100% of the time. Note that I did not say kill, I said stop, which could mean they are still alive and capable, just no longer a threat.
What you fail to relate with these FBI statistics is that they were all gleaned from DOJ studies (mostly from NIJ and NCJRS--who I worked for, BTW, for a decade as a contractor)
designed to collate data about self-defense shootings involving LEOs, not citizens.
LEOs RARELY get attacked "out of the blue". It's in their job requirements to insert themselves intentionally into violent, volatile, dangerous situations. LEOs rarely get shot at just walking down the street. LEOs rarely get mugged, raped, or car-jacked. When LEOs find themselves in a gunfight, its usually because they've been called to the scene of a crime already in progress and they are trying to apprehend a dangerous, desperate criminal.
When LEOs have their guns grabbed, its not because some BG sneaked up behind them in a mall and tried to make away with their Glock--99% of the time, LEO-related gun grabs happen while an LEO is grappling, wrestling, or otherwise attempting to physically restrain a subject. The LEO initiated physical contact with a BG, and the BG doesn't want to go peacefully.
These situations are VERY different than the self-defense situations that citizens find themselves in. Citizens rarely are trying to restrain or apprehend a BG. Citizens rarely insert themselves intentionally into situations that are already violent, unless they have a personal interest in the victim. Citizens rarely approach BGs and announce that they are going to attempt to detain them.
So the FBI studies (which are actually DOJ/NIJ/NCJRS studies, because the FBI doesn't have the staff or facilities to do this sort of research), while VERY informative for LEOs, are not terribly relevant or scientifically pertinent to the realities of self defense scenarios of the average citizen.
LEOs are trained to be pro-active.
Citizens are forced (by law, by morals, and by social convention) to be REACTIVE to criminals. Hopefully we as citizens will never have to deal with a criminal, but when we do, it's because THEY came to US, and so we are forced into a reactive state of self defense.
When an LEO makes contact with BGs is USUALLY because the LEO has sought out the BG, and has intentionally made contact with the intent of apprehending (or at least detaining and investigating) said BG.
Those are two VERY different scenarios. They create VERY different mindsets in the BG. And they carry with them VERY different legal duties and obligations for the "good guys", be they citizens or LEOs.
Concealed Carry training is not LE training. In fact, most of the procedures that LEOs live by will get citizens arrested and jailed if we try to use them. To this end, I will never understand why so many CC instructors seem to think that LE-type scenarios have any relevancy to self defense situations encountered by citizens...
What we need is some SERIOUS academic research on self defense events involving lawfully armed citizens. But with the rabid anti-gun sentiments in academia, and the unwillingness of the DOJ to fund ANY sort of research involving people who "refuse to be victims", such research is rare. The only reliable, peer-reviewed scientific research done along this line is th ework of John Lott. His work is FANTASTIC, but it's only one study. We need a LOT more studies like his...