noskilz
Member
Um, yes.
Something that bugs me about CHL's & Media
- Thread starter bigalexe
- Start date
- Status
Um, yes.
Mauserguy
Member
Hmmmm.... "Equalizer"? I don't think I would want my gun to make me equal to an attacker. I want it to make me vastly superior to an attacker.
Oh well, at least people are taking an active role in their own safety.
Mauserguy
Oh well, at least people are taking an active role in their own safety.
Mauserguy
Well aside from the OP's rant, the piece on the local news was surprisingly not anti-gun biased. It actually appeared to be encouraging people thinking about buying a gun to go out and take the class and not demonizing firearm ownership.
It also focused on two black women and the class was taught by a black woman, debunking the gun owner = overweight sweaty white male myth. I'd say it was a pretty good piece of free pro-2a PR from a news station that reports on nothing but murders and robberies in Detroit.
It also focused on two black women and the class was taught by a black woman, debunking the gun owner = overweight sweaty white male myth. I'd say it was a pretty good piece of free pro-2a PR from a news station that reports on nothing but murders and robberies in Detroit.
kda
Member
While I don't relish the idea of anyone getting a CCW permit without passing some basic range proficiency requirements (required here in AZ) I also wouldn't worry too much about those states that issue carry licenses to folks who are "scared of their gun" ... if only because whether they have a license or not, I doubt that they will actually be carrying that frightful beast around with them on the street. The part that is harder to understand is why they would want a carry license in the first place. I suspect that if they actually do decide to carry the gun someday they will also decide it would be nice to be able to hit something if they needed to ... and so they would eventually gravitate towards some handgun training.
Conversely, I am pleasantly surprised by the number of women and older folks of both sexes who I see at the local indoor range. They handle their weapons and shoot them well IMO. I'm guessing they are interested enough in self protection to actually carry their weapons if they have CCW permits and I have no problems sharing the streets with any of them.
Conversely, I am pleasantly surprised by the number of women and older folks of both sexes who I see at the local indoor range. They handle their weapons and shoot them well IMO. I'm guessing they are interested enough in self protection to actually carry their weapons if they have CCW permits and I have no problems sharing the streets with any of them.
stickhauler
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 538
Personally, I Prefer The Attitude.....
The instructor who did my class had about choices of firearms to use in the course. Their standard was you actually had to bring a firearm to the class, with a minimum caliber of .380. And, he also stated his opinion that any firearm you planned to use for carry should be shown on your training record, for liability purposes if nothing else. And I'd agree, most any lawyer for someone suing you for injuries after a self defense shooting (or a lawsuit by the survivors of the bad guy you shot) would make a point of claiming you were unqualified to carry a firearm that you hadn't demonstrated your proficiency with.
Your comment about "grandmothers working up to center fire" really makes me laugh, my wife, at the tender age of 69 demonstrated proficiency, and had no ill effects firing a handgun for the first time, using a .38 special. And she has had rotator cuff surgeries on both shoulders. There is another lady who shoots at our club that regularly shoots her husband's Taurus "Judge" using both .45 & .410 rounds, she might just weigh in at 90 pounds if you made her wear real heavy wool clothes and wet her down, and she's right around my wife's age as well. So I tend to discount the lack of ability of a "grandma" to shoot something bigger than a .22 caliber.
Lots of folks shoot firearms for fun at the range, my own thinking is that's a great thing for fun, but if you're shooting to demonstrate your ability to use a firearm for self defense, you might ought to use one that you would actually consider up to the task of defending your life if necessary.
The instructor who did my class had about choices of firearms to use in the course. Their standard was you actually had to bring a firearm to the class, with a minimum caliber of .380. And, he also stated his opinion that any firearm you planned to use for carry should be shown on your training record, for liability purposes if nothing else. And I'd agree, most any lawyer for someone suing you for injuries after a self defense shooting (or a lawsuit by the survivors of the bad guy you shot) would make a point of claiming you were unqualified to carry a firearm that you hadn't demonstrated your proficiency with.
Your comment about "grandmothers working up to center fire" really makes me laugh, my wife, at the tender age of 69 demonstrated proficiency, and had no ill effects firing a handgun for the first time, using a .38 special. And she has had rotator cuff surgeries on both shoulders. There is another lady who shoots at our club that regularly shoots her husband's Taurus "Judge" using both .45 & .410 rounds, she might just weigh in at 90 pounds if you made her wear real heavy wool clothes and wet her down, and she's right around my wife's age as well. So I tend to discount the lack of ability of a "grandma" to shoot something bigger than a .22 caliber.
Lots of folks shoot firearms for fun at the range, my own thinking is that's a great thing for fun, but if you're shooting to demonstrate your ability to use a firearm for self defense, you might ought to use one that you would actually consider up to the task of defending your life if necessary.
bdickens
Member
If we all waited until we were experts before we did something, none of us would ever do anything.
wally
Member
I'd rather you put your efforts into worrying about if newly registered voters were competent to determine the future of our country.
--wally.
bigfatdave
Member
stickhauler, this "training record" you speak of does not exist.
My CC permit is proficiency demonstration, it does not specify any particular firearm beyond being a "handgun" permit.
Your example of a particular person does not negate the rights of my hypothetical permit applicant ... perhaps I was too specific in making up an example everyone could understand, I apoligize if you got the impression that I wanted to debate grandmas and guns, the point I was attempting to make was that any citizen who wants a CC permit is entitled to one, regardless of what they choose to pack and/or train with.
If you doubt the skills of someone who used a .22 target pistol to qualify, I'd be happy to meey up with you at my range and compete with whatever drill you choose, at any reasonable SD distance, with my PPS or my wife's XD.
My CC permit is proficiency demonstration, it does not specify any particular firearm beyond being a "handgun" permit.
Your example of a particular person does not negate the rights of my hypothetical permit applicant ... perhaps I was too specific in making up an example everyone could understand, I apoligize if you got the impression that I wanted to debate grandmas and guns, the point I was attempting to make was that any citizen who wants a CC permit is entitled to one, regardless of what they choose to pack and/or train with.
If you doubt the skills of someone who used a .22 target pistol to qualify, I'd be happy to meey up with you at my range and compete with whatever drill you choose, at any reasonable SD distance, with my PPS or my wife's XD.
Last edited:
stickhauler
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 538
Oh Really??
The place you took your class at keeps no records? I took my class through a local gun shop, with two of three instructors employees at the shop, one a lady who runs their office, has NRA certification as a firearms instructor, and in her leisure time is a competitive trap shooter. The other main instructor is a part-time employee of the shop, and his full time job is instructor and range operations officer for Montgomery County, Ohio Sheriff's Department. The gun shop keeps on file the training documents of every student who entered and completed a concealed carry course through their shop.
The shooting club I belong to also offers CCW training, and keeps training records of every person who enters and completes their training.
Either place's training records may not be official records required by Ohio for those who take concealed carry courses, but are kept on file for their own record keeping, and for those who take their courses to rely on if they ever lose their course completion certificates. In the case of where I took my course, they offer qualification for any firearm you choose to carry if you took their course, with a certified instructor for a small fee.
Do I need to have such a record of file? I hope to hell not. But, if a person has to fire in self defense, rest assured that a lawyer for the person you shot, or their family if the person was killed can, and often do file suit on the CCW holder who fired in self defense. And they will seek out and find where you took your CCW classes. And if the place you took your class keeps a record of what you used to demonstrate your competency with a firearm, and such an event occurs to you, that lawyer will find you used a .22 to qualify, and likely will argue that you meant to kill someone that particular day if you shot using any firearm larger than a .22. Don't believe me? Do a little research on case studies of civil cases filed against concealed carry holders who fired in self defense and were sued in a civil suit, and learn the extent a lawyer will go to prove you did something wrong.
I have no doubt you're proficient with a firearm, you said you were, I have no reason to dispute that fact. We both know that some folks will take the course, rarely shoot again, and still consider themselves qualified to carry and use a firearm, if necessary, in self defense. If these same people used a small caliber firearm to qualify for the permit, and opt to carry a larger caliber handgun for carry, are they truly qualified to use it? I've got 2 great-grand-daughters that with minimal training could shoot proficiently enough to fill the bill for a permit using a .22 pistol, and they're 6 and 9. I've got a "c" note that says they wouldn't do as well shooting my 9mm XD, even with lots of training.
We're not talking about people with years of experience with firearms being the majority of those going through training for permits, we're talking about new folks to shooting who for whatever reason have decided to become gun owners, and concealed carry holders. You mentioned you could have passed the test for the classroom portion as easily at 6 am as you did at 4 pm, so could most of us who have been around guns all our lives. The focus of the instructors for the courses is a collective of the experience level of all those in a specific class of people taking the course. They know going in that some are going to be thinking it's a waste of damned time, they also know that some are going to be hearing the information for the very first time.
My belief is that in the near future all of us who hold permits will be required to have consistent training, across the board, in every state, to retain our permits. That's the quickest and most logical way to settle the issue of whether we can be armed in every state that allows concealed carry.
The place you took your class at keeps no records? I took my class through a local gun shop, with two of three instructors employees at the shop, one a lady who runs their office, has NRA certification as a firearms instructor, and in her leisure time is a competitive trap shooter. The other main instructor is a part-time employee of the shop, and his full time job is instructor and range operations officer for Montgomery County, Ohio Sheriff's Department. The gun shop keeps on file the training documents of every student who entered and completed a concealed carry course through their shop.
The shooting club I belong to also offers CCW training, and keeps training records of every person who enters and completes their training.
Either place's training records may not be official records required by Ohio for those who take concealed carry courses, but are kept on file for their own record keeping, and for those who take their courses to rely on if they ever lose their course completion certificates. In the case of where I took my course, they offer qualification for any firearm you choose to carry if you took their course, with a certified instructor for a small fee.
Do I need to have such a record of file? I hope to hell not. But, if a person has to fire in self defense, rest assured that a lawyer for the person you shot, or their family if the person was killed can, and often do file suit on the CCW holder who fired in self defense. And they will seek out and find where you took your CCW classes. And if the place you took your class keeps a record of what you used to demonstrate your competency with a firearm, and such an event occurs to you, that lawyer will find you used a .22 to qualify, and likely will argue that you meant to kill someone that particular day if you shot using any firearm larger than a .22. Don't believe me? Do a little research on case studies of civil cases filed against concealed carry holders who fired in self defense and were sued in a civil suit, and learn the extent a lawyer will go to prove you did something wrong.
I have no doubt you're proficient with a firearm, you said you were, I have no reason to dispute that fact. We both know that some folks will take the course, rarely shoot again, and still consider themselves qualified to carry and use a firearm, if necessary, in self defense. If these same people used a small caliber firearm to qualify for the permit, and opt to carry a larger caliber handgun for carry, are they truly qualified to use it? I've got 2 great-grand-daughters that with minimal training could shoot proficiently enough to fill the bill for a permit using a .22 pistol, and they're 6 and 9. I've got a "c" note that says they wouldn't do as well shooting my 9mm XD, even with lots of training.
We're not talking about people with years of experience with firearms being the majority of those going through training for permits, we're talking about new folks to shooting who for whatever reason have decided to become gun owners, and concealed carry holders. You mentioned you could have passed the test for the classroom portion as easily at 6 am as you did at 4 pm, so could most of us who have been around guns all our lives. The focus of the instructors for the courses is a collective of the experience level of all those in a specific class of people taking the course. They know going in that some are going to be thinking it's a waste of damned time, they also know that some are going to be hearing the information for the very first time.
My belief is that in the near future all of us who hold permits will be required to have consistent training, across the board, in every state, to retain our permits. That's the quickest and most logical way to settle the issue of whether we can be armed in every state that allows concealed carry.
Cap'n Jack Burntbeard
Member
This is the only time that I can say that I'm glad to live in Vermont.
bigfatdave
Member
stickhauler, calm down.
Records of training, yes. Names, dates, written test score, pass/fail (and maybe even a score, but not at the place I went) for the practical portion are all kept.
Records of what pistol was used to demonstrate proficiency, NO. In the end, keeping shots on target is the same, all that changes is the speed and accuracy of follow-up shots when you go to a lighter caliber. Well, and noise, I suppose.
Records of training with the particular gun you use for SD can be used against you as well, how do you know that you won't be portrayed as someone looking to shoot someone?
"see, here's a pile of records with stickhauler training with the very evil gun used in the shooting!"
is just as likely as
"see, bigfatdave trained with a much smaller gun and isn't even qualified to use the PPS he carries every day!".
Either you employed deadly force or you didn't, let's not get paranoid about what a sleazy lawyer might cook up when suing you on behalf of some scumbag who needed deadly force, because there's no end to the possibilities for a frivolous lawsuit.
Records of training, yes. Names, dates, written test score, pass/fail (and maybe even a score, but not at the place I went) for the practical portion are all kept.
Records of what pistol was used to demonstrate proficiency, NO. In the end, keeping shots on target is the same, all that changes is the speed and accuracy of follow-up shots when you go to a lighter caliber. Well, and noise, I suppose.
Records of training with the particular gun you use for SD can be used against you as well, how do you know that you won't be portrayed as someone looking to shoot someone?
"see, here's a pile of records with stickhauler training with the very evil gun used in the shooting!"
is just as likely as
"see, bigfatdave trained with a much smaller gun and isn't even qualified to use the PPS he carries every day!".
Either you employed deadly force or you didn't, let's not get paranoid about what a sleazy lawyer might cook up when suing you on behalf of some scumbag who needed deadly force, because there's no end to the possibilities for a frivolous lawsuit.
smallbore
Member
Sounds to me like woman who purchased the firearm, applied for her chl & took/passed the issuing state's required course has chosen to 'refuse to be a victim'. If she & all the other women who participated in the mentioned course are choosing to protect their family/self from harm then my hat is off to them.
CajunBass
Member
That sounds about right to me.
9MMare
Member
According to most gun owners' beliefs, our 2nd amendment rights are unassailable. So, she has the right. Is she responsible enough? Who knows?
I have the same attitude towards people who have kids....ANYONE can have them, it's their right, but loads of them certainly arent qualified to raise them properly.
Cant do anything about them either.
So my attitude about CHL's is that 'freedom doesnt mean safe, it means free.' THere are risks that come along with freedom.
Plus, she's IN A CLASS learning to use her weapon, trying to be that responsible gun owner.
mljdeckard
Member
Bigfatdave said it all. God created men. Samuel Colt made them equal.
She is getting training. How do you expect people to learn to shoot without taking the baby steps involved, including buying a weapon to learn with?
I believe that any adult U.S. Citizen without a history of violence or a disqualifying mental health condition should be free to carry any firearm they please, any way they please, so long as they do not endanger others or behave recklessly. This attitude that people should have some sort of government say-so before owning or using a weapon is ridiculous to me, the same way describing gun rip-off programs as "buy-Backs" infuriates me.
9MMare
Member
I got my CPL before I bought my handgun. My impression was that it took a long time to get one. (Apparently not in WA st however. I had it in a week.)
But because of the background check required, it has made several things easier since then, including picking up the gun I ordered online at my local shop, joining a local gun advocacy group, etc. It is my 'proof' and other's now dont have to run the background checks. It saves time if nothing else.
9MMare
Member
Agreed. While a gun can even those odds, women are not as big or strong as men and in other areas of defense, mostly at a disadvantage.
We're 'equal,' not the 'same.' There's a difference.
TimM
Member
I wish that there was a test of competence before someone was allowed to make some bigoted and asinine statement on an internet forum. But wait.... there is a first amendment right to free speech. Maybe we should get rid of that while we are at it?
Last edited:
Deltaboy1984
Member
God Created Man, Col Colt made them equal.
mljdeckard
Member
I have a DD 214 that says I am an expert with a rifle and a pistol. What it DOESN'T say is that the army standard for expert isn't really very high, especially for pistol. I could wave it around, and use it as 'evidence' that I have experience and training, and therefore I am professional enough to carry a gun, but I would know it isn't really true. The cowboys I grew up with were better at ten years old than I will ever be, and most of them don't have a scrap of paper to 'prove' it. To put this idea of a 'minimum' standard of competence is to do exactly what we did at the turn of the last century in making voters pass 'literacy' tests to be 'allowed' to vote. I would be doing all gun owners a disservice if I used my documented experience in the military as a reason I am competent, but they have not yet proven it.
9MMare
Member
Tim, I'd like to just say that this is also the way that people get exposed to different perspectives. He didnt post maliciously, he was annoyed and expressed his opinions. THat is also his first amendment right....but then he gets different responses and if things stay civil, people can learn new ways of viewing things.
If we crush everyone that comes with a dumb question (could be me at anytime) or that expresses their views, then people will stop coming here and learning anything.
Very school-marm like....sorry, not really my usual attitude!
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
We don't give awards for maximum emotion showed in a post. 
FWIW: Some years back I ran across an article which claimed that Oopsies by police, nationwide, was some 33 people shot (hit; not necessarily killed)when the shooting effort was at a different person. Oopsies by non-police was alleged to be only three. This was a one-year compilation. "That's what I read." Use your own salt shaker.
IMO, logic would have it that most self-defense shootings are in relatively isolated situations. Inside a home, inside a business. Few other or no other people around besides the lawful person and the would-be robber. Thus, a low probability of an Oopsie.
FWIW: Some years back I ran across an article which claimed that Oopsies by police, nationwide, was some 33 people shot (hit; not necessarily killed)when the shooting effort was at a different person. Oopsies by non-police was alleged to be only three. This was a one-year compilation. "That's what I read." Use your own salt shaker.
IMO, logic would have it that most self-defense shootings are in relatively isolated situations. Inside a home, inside a business. Few other or no other people around besides the lawful person and the would-be robber. Thus, a low probability of an Oopsie.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
