Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
I've been to 3 Thunder Ranch courses, which should about typify the good shooting schools in the US. The first morning was spent in a classroom, the rest of the time, day and night, was spent on outdoor and indoor ranges. About 1200 to 1600 rounds were fired. The students were men and women ranging in age from mid-20s to their sixties and varied from being complete novices to spec ops types.

They were all extremely serious about things to begin with and the staff would accept nothing less. Everybody came out at least competent and some, including novices, came out a lot better than that. After seeing that I think you can turn out competent, serious minded shooters in just 40 hours of instruction. Of course, it was a bit of a self selected group in that they had to lay out their own money and a week of their own time in order to take the course.

One thing that might be germane to the discussion is the program that allows some airline pilots to carry pistols on the airplane. I believe they have to lay out their own money and spend their own time for instruction. That insures that mostly serious minded people apply for it.

I don't have a problem with commanders establishing common sense requirements above state CCW requirements. Examples might be:

1. Be 21
2. Be a corporal or above
3. Qualify on the LEO or CID qual standards.
4. Pass a use of force law test.

To categorically state or imply that servicemembers can't be trusted with CCW priviledges is wrong.

National Parks used to prohibit all guns for the most part. Congress changed the law and now National Parks follow the CCW law of the state in which they are located. Haven't heard any reports of armed mayhem, shootouts at Old Faithful or indications of the end of life as we know it since the change.

Even Stan could feel safe there