Printable View
I've also had ND's, but the training I've had ensured that I had the muzzle in a safe direction. A violation of one of the safety rules will happen to everyone who shoots firearms sooner or later. There are shooters who have ND'ed and there are shooters who are going to have a ND. A violation of two of the safety rules at the same time is when terminal bad ju-ju happens.
so CCW holders should have training forced upon them because humans are indeed human?Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Training and practice eliminates ignorance, and lowers the risk of human error.Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyKo
Creating a reasonable standard of training instills a minimum level of competence across the board of CCW holders.
I'm sorry, but how can qualification standards be OK for military and police and not OK for CCW holders? This just smacks in the face of common sense.
I challange every one of you who think there shouldn't be a minimum standard of training for a CCW to pick you your gear and come out to a pistol competition. There's one every weekend and they happen all over CO. Come and see where you really rack and stack in your shooting abilities. Like I said, I thought I was good with firearms and then I woke up.
The stress and shooting skills in competition directly correlate over to shooting in real life. Not necessarily all the guns (some do), but everything else does. I know: 4 years shooting USPSA, 21 years in the AF, 11 years of the military as a Fed agent, over 50 combat missions outside the wire in Iraq from two tours. Training and practice were so vital, we dedicated one day a week to nothing but training and practice while in country. It kept us alive.
Reality is indeed stranger than fiction. I find it ironic I'm having this (paletable) discussion with the primary opposing view coming from a red hat with 20 years as a shooting instructor. I once went out to the range to talk to our base CATM about something and they were doing M9 AFQC with the Med Group. I left immediately. It was down right scary. I felt so bad for those guys. They had to be wrecked at the end of the day.
The results of the ballistic testing in The Thompson-LaGarde Cadaver Tests of 1904:
Based upon the data they gathered, Thompson and LaGarde stated, "the Board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45". But they also said, "...soldiers armed with pistols or revolvers should be drilled unremittingly in the accuracy of fire" because most of the human body offered "no hope of stopping an adversary by shock or other immediate results when hit."
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
I agree, training is an essential part of responsible firearm ownership, but at no point, EVER, should Big Brother be able to dictate the way I train.
Look...train all you want to and can afford. I have no problem with that. In fact, I encourage it. BUT KEEP THE .GOV OUT OF MANDATING STANDARDS! And you've said nothing to convince me there is a problem with the average person with a permit who carries for self-defense. I feel far more threatened by many knuckleheads who have drivers licenses (especially while on my scooter). There just aren't any statistics to back up the claim that minimal training standards such as what CO has in effect create a danger to the public at large. Nor is there any evidence that would even remotely suggest that standards need to be more stringent. None. No where.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Furthermore, after having conducted CCW classes for over 9 years (since I left police work) I can tell you this from class surveys:Also, I don't see a valid comparison to LE or Military with the average person who carries for defense in terms of threats for which they need to train. Not everyone wants to be an "operator". Not everyone who carries goes out into the world armed with a primary, a BUG, two knives, OC and a light like some would have you believe is necessary. I'm not saying that's bad, I just don't think the average person who carries is going to go to such lengths nor should they. The average person isn't going out into a war zone or facing battlefield conditions. The vast majority will never even take their guns out of their holsters in a life-threatening encounter.
- There is a percentage of people who attend the class and do not get a permit
- Of those that get permits, very few carry on a regular basis
- Most of the people who get permits either practice, or are already fairly competent with a handgun
I also believe many people who advocate a qualification course for concealed carry have absolutely no idea what takes place during a potential lethal force encounter. There is no way the average qualification course required during any CCW class will adequately prepare, nor resemble, a lethal force encounter. I think if a person believes that going to a CCW class, attending the lecture and then firing 40 rounds (or whatever) on a range at a static target under conditions of good lighting, little time constraints and little to no stress makes someone better prepared to deal with a lethal force encounter they're simply naive. It might marginally help them, for a short time unless they continue to practice, with weapon manipulation skills. But those skills are perishable. It's simply nonsense to say that requals every 5 years would make these people appreciably safer and better gun handlers.
You shouldn't find it ironic that a former Red Hat feels this way when discussing civilian carry. You know as well as I do that the average AF person, especially the admin/medical types, gives a rats ass about guns or how to use them. Well, when I was in anyway (79-89 active, 92-96 AFR). Things have obviously changed since then with a couple of wars going on. But my service, as a military person and as a LE officer, was dedicated to upholding the Constitution. And I believe everyone has the God-given right to defend themselves, whether they're expert marksmen or not.
Would you deny a disabled person the opportunity to defend him/herself because they didn't have the ability to pass a particular qual course?
The anecdotal evidence I see (magazine articles, news reports, blog entries, etc...), day in and day out, leads me to believe that people by the hundreds of thousands every year, successfully defend themselves with only the meager means at hand...minimal, if any, training and a firearm.
Now, having said all that, I run a class that not only provides a substantial amount of lecture, but also hands on practice drawing, handling, reholstering, etc... I also have invested a lot of money into a laser simulator and require students in my class to demonstrate safe handling while shooting lots of dynamic targets. I don't require them to be expert marksmen. Also, our class requires students to shoot 3 judgmental training video exercises with debriefs about what they did right or wrong, etc... But, that's just my business and how I operate. I absolutely don't feel it should be mandated by the state.
Sorry about the long post. This is something I debate frequently on THR and other forums and the battle lines are fairly evenly split on this topic, I think.
None whatsoever, and I'll concede the argument. Now that my head is clear, I realize I actually don't care if anyone can demonstrate any basic ability with or safe handling of a firearm on the street, and I certainly don't feel the government has any responsibility to the public to make any effort to ensure they do. I do concede...I've seen no data to indicate that folks who've never handled or trained in the use of firearms are a danger to anyone when they use them. I've seen untrained people endanger themselves and others multiple times, of course, but have no data to support that, or to support the notion that training would have prevented the alleged endangerment. But in any case, the government certainly has no responsibility in this regard anyway, and of course its efforts to take responsibility would certainly fail because in general, the government is utterly incompetent in establishing legislation that solves any problems when it comes to firearms. Amazingly so, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
So are you suggesting I should not have a CCW because of what exactly?
Is it because I do not jump high or maybe do not run fast enough or is it I do not really desire to go out and play with a pistol in some pistol sports?
I know I can not hit the broad side of a barn with any weapon but personally I hope in america that I have a right to defend myself without your permission!
Bailey guns has had a great reputation for teaching classes before this forum even started and I really believe he teaches classes the way it should be taught.
jon coppenbarger 1762
I do not argue with your right to defend yourself (I believe every one has that right), and you certainly do not need my permission to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc121
That being said, if you and I were in McDonalds, and some wackjob came in and grabbed me from behind and held me hostage, and you had your gun on you that day, I would hope you would be competent enough in your weapon skills to take that motherfucker down.
Thats all.
An addition to my previous post:
Far be it a day I do not have my gun on me!