Bradman, it has only been 7 minutes since you posted this. I am begging you to PLEASE reconsider this and edit or not. Please, just reconsider.we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency.
Wow. Sounds like you have had a reality check. The concealed carry program is a BASIC mandatory training that offers no training at all. It is a CYA class for the government. You have been misguided if you haven't been taught the basic firearms fundamentals, safety first. We should all be required to go through a training program. Then, we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency. Laws change, the concealed carry holder might change as well.
Not everyone is meant to carry a gun. The days of assuming that everyone is competent with their firearms have come and gone.
Wow. Sounds like you have had a reality check. The concealed carry program is a BASIC mandatory training that offers no training at all. It is a CYA class for the government. You have been misguided if you haven't been taught the basic firearms fundamentals, safety first. We should all be required to go through a training program. Then, we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency. Laws change, the concealed carry holder might change as well.
Not everyone is meant to carry a gun. The days of assuming that everyone is competent with their firearms have come and gone.
I agree with you. I did have a reality check not too long ago. ( I had a post about that too, as I do about everything!) This made me realize I had to get the basics first. Which I will.Wow. Sounds like you have had a reality check. The concealed carry program is a BASIC mandatory training that offers no training at all. It is a CYA class for the government. You have been misguided if you haven't been taught the basic firearms fundamentals, safety first. We should all be required to go through a training program. Then, we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency. Laws change, the concealed carry holder might change as well.
Not everyone is meant to carry a gun. The days of assuming that everyone is competent with their firearms have come and gone.
There is a law to have a hunting class before you get a hunting license, correct? I think I owe it to myself and others around me to get a basic pistol class, which I should have done a year ago.Agreed. Would anyone here support a law requiring a basic firearms safety class before purchasing a gun (or at least a handgun)? How about a hunter safety class to get a hunting license?
No One is arguing That. Mandatory qualifications yearly and the CWP system is an insult. Everyone should want to know how to use their firearm. NO one should be Made to do it. This is one of those is or ain't things Millie. You right to free speech is not tested by your vocabulary.I think a basic class is a good thing when you're a new shooter.
Well, then you guys quit following the laws and rip up your permits to CC and get on with it.Government not big enough for you? Like to be given permission instead of using your God-given rights? Sounds like you may not be in the right place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can't tell you how much I appreciate you posting this. Now if all will just read.Well, then you guys quit following the laws and rip up your permits to CC and get on with it.
I don't like it at all, but I choose to follow the law and get a permit to carry my gun. I suppose if I was younger, I may not want to abide by the law, but I'm too old to stir things up now. LoL.
But we all have to choose what to do about following the law, even to do something we all know is a RIGHT we were given a long time ago.
Well, then you guys quit following the laws and rip up your permits to CC and get on with it.
I don't like it at all, but I choose to follow the law and get a permit to carry my gun. I suppose if I was younger, I may not want to abide by the law, but I'm too old to stir things up now. LoL.
But we all have to choose what to do about following the law, even to do something we all know is a RIGHT we were given a long time ago.
We should all be required to go through a training program. Then, we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency.
I'm just saying that everyone is not automatically proficient with a handgun after taking the 8 hour block of instruction.
There is a law to have a hunting class before you get a hunting license, correct?
“
I think it’s a good idea to....”
“You should be required to....”
These two above sentences mean different things.
Wow. Sounds like you have had a reality check. The concealed carry program is a BASIC mandatory training that offers no training at all. It is a CYA class for the government. You have been misguided if you haven't been taught the basic firearms fundamentals, safety first. We should all be required to go through a training program. Then, we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency. Laws change, the concealed carry holder might change as well.
Not everyone is meant to carry a gun. The days of assuming that everyone is competent with their firearms have come and gone.
We should all seek training, continuously.
We should all be required to go through a training program. Then, we should have to qualify annually to guarantee proficiency.
That's why I posted what I did Way up stream. A simple edit would have made this moot.This is where we parted company. The "require" word.
That's why I posted what I did Way up stream. A simple edit would have made this moot.
Personally I think @Bradman is a good man. He and I have talked. "WE" understand each other.
Other people had already posted once I realized my post was offensive.
Each and every person that carries a gun for personal and family protection needs to remember ONE THING.It is that they are responsible for every round that they shoot out of their gun until it reaches it's terminal resting place.I don't think that good shooters are born,they are trained whether by a family member or a paid trainer. Proficiency is being able to hit what you are aiming at not what the government dictates. God help you if you don't hit your intended Target and hit an inocent bystander ,an adult or worse a child. What would happen to you if this were to happen. I think that most people don't think about this scenario when they complain and talk crap about a professional that has been a Leo or a soldier or a certified trainer. You are never to old to learn and when you think you know everything and you screw up the world will implode around you.Would you be able to live with yourself if you took the life of an innocent person. Think about this before you start bantering. I know some will disagree most won'tWhile I see your point on the surface who is to say to what level of proficiency? Just being able to load and fire a couple rounds without shooting yourself? Scoring “x”% on a state or FBI qualification course of fire? Last time I ran the NC LEO course it was timed ... not short but not a huge amount either and specific on hand usage and reloading. Also out of the 50 rounds fired, 12 were from 15 yards and 6 from 25 yards. If a liberal politician pushed for the NC DOJ course were made for CHP quals I’d venture to say a huge portion on people would not make the grade without a good deal of training. Would it be a bad thing for everyone to be at that level ... hell no ... the state would be safer from negligent shootings and criminals would really be afraid of facing a good law abiding citizen cause they would likely be a hell of a lot more likely to be stopped. On the flip side you’d be taking away the ability of an average law abiding citizen to carry to protect themselves. NC has over 600,000 current CHP’s under its current requirements and yes there are likely quite a few who haven’t done anything with a firearm since receiving their CHP’s but to what level should we be held and who is to set that level now and in the future as anti-gun legislation gets rammed thru more and more by liberal agendas?
I started carrying a revolver when I was at the legal age to buy one. I have carried one everyday since,way beforeccw was ever though of. I was lucky enough to have an uncle that was very proficient with firearms. He started me and his son out early with training.He was a US Marine. He all thtaught us all the fundamentals of handgun shooting.. Then in 1974 I started BLET in the city of Durham PD. I thought I knew it all but I learned a lot that year. And Every year since that first day I've been required to qualify with my duty pistol and my edc pistol. Then About 15 years ago I decide to get a ccw permit so that I would not have to go to the sheriff's department to get a permit every time I wanted to buy a gun..I see Bradman's side about testing but I don't think it's for everyone. He to was a Leo. So that yearly training is burned into his thought process. Also for the record I do seem to learn something every year during qualifications or I'm reminded of something I had forgotten.I do think everyone that carries a gun should be proficient with a handgun before they start carrying one. Atleast know enough about the laws of carrying one and the limits of their ability. As Clint Eastwood said "A man's got to know his limitations". Everyone is not as lucky as I was to have a competent instructor.To each his own. I think the majority of us on the forum have enough sense to seek training and get the best they can get.
No sir I don't, there are very few officers that have no previous experience that pass the range on their first try. Many go through training and still fail having to take remedial training for many hours. Some flunkout of BLET because they can't pass firearms.Take Leo's out of the equation and think about people that think they can be capable of protecting themselves with no training what so everJust curious: in your opinion is basic police pistol qualification a good indicator of actual proficiency with a firearm?
In other words: are police that pass it proficient with their sidearms?
This kind of illustrates the difficulty in determining what "proficient" means. And what the requirements would be for attaining proficiency.
You make some good points, but I'd be surprised if most people on the forum seek out the best training they can. Although I agree they should!
It seems like most people just like to collect guns and occasionally pop off some rounds at the range. A perfectly acceptable thing to do, of course.
Each and every person that carries a gun for personal and family protection needs to remember ONE THING.It is that they are responsible for every round that they shoot out of their gun until it reaches it's terminal resting place.I don't think that good shooters are born,they are trained whether by a family member or a paid trainer. Proficiency is being able to hit what you are aiming at not what the government dictates. God help you if you don't hit your intended Target and hit an inocent bystander ,an adult or worse a child. What would happen to you if this were to happen. I think that most people don't think about this scenario when they complain and talk crap about a professional that has been a Leo or a soldier or a certified trainer. You are never to old to learn and when you think you know everything and you screw up the world will implode around you.Would you be able to live with yourself if you took the life of an innocent person. Think about this before you start bantering. I know some will disagree most won't
Just curious: in your opinion is basic police pistol qualification a good indicator of actual proficiency with a firearm?
In other words: are police that pass it proficient with their sidearms?
This kind of illustrates the difficulty in determining what "proficient" means. And what the requirements would be for attaining proficiency.
No sir I don't, there are very few officers that have no previous experience that pass the range on their first try. Many go through training and still fail having to take remedial training for many hours. Some flunkout of BLET because they can't pass firearms.Take Leo's out of the equation and think about people that think they can be capable of protecting themselves with no training what so ever
That's what and who I'm talking about.
Also the state requires a passing grade of 70 percent. The two departments that I've worked with required a minimum score of 80%. Do I think that is enough. Absolutely not. I use to get pissed off with myself if I didn't shoot 100%.but I've Never shot less than 94.6. Owning a firearm is a a right under the Constitution but it doesn't protect you if you screw upJust curious: in your opinion is basic police pistol qualification a good indicator of actual proficiency with a firearm?
In other words: are police that pass it proficient with their sidearms?
This kind of illustrates the difficulty in determining what "proficient" means. And what the requirements would be for attaining proficiency.
You make some good points, but I'd be surprised if most people on the forum seek out the best training they can. Although I agree they should!
It seems like most people just like to collect guns and occasionally pop off some rounds at the range. A perfectly acceptable thing to do, of course.
Winner...………...unfortunately.It seems like most people just like to collect guns and occasionally pop off some rounds at the range. A perfectly acceptable thing to do, of course.
Same as above.Some people just can't shoot .
This should be a must. Remember the old saying..those that can...do. those that can't...teach. Don't Tell me Shiite, Show me Shiite.What competency does the trainer have to demonstrate?
Also the state requires a passing grade of 70 percent. The two departments that I've worked with required a minimum score of 80%. Do I think that is enough. Absolutely not. I use to get pissed off with myself if I didn't shoot 100%.but I've Never shot less than 94.6. Owning a firearm is a a right under the Constitution but it doesn't protect you if you screw up
The NC police pistol qual is a fair indicator of proficiency, IMO. When I went through BLET, the gun nuts among us all shot pretty well right from the beginning of range week, but it's no cakewalk. Most of the non-shooters could be trained to qual within that week, but their skills are going to degrade much more quickly than those who shoot fairly regular & have years of experience to fall back on.
Still not down with any more requirements than those we already have to deal with.
Police Instructors have to show their ability to be able to teach classes. Then take classes to become a firearms instructor. And police trainers have to be able to shoot a score of 90% . PPSB instructor's have to recertify every 2 years with a minimum score of 92%>Also on a side note PPSB certified officers have to shoot a minimum of 80%. 10%higher than Leo's. Hope that answers your questionsGreat questions NKD..
Who trains the trainers? Who sets the "standard"? What competency does the trainer have to demonstrate?
That's good to hear, and I trust your opinion of it.
I'm down for no extra requirements for private citizens. But for professionals, I am all for it. Within reason of course.
Since getting into shooting I've had the pleasure of meeting quite a few cops that are the kind of guys that train and shoot competition, and to be frank, if I ever have to dial 911, I hope its these dudes who answer the call! But it seems that the only police who are really good are shooting enthusiasts. I know ammo is expensive, and some places are tight with it, but I'd like to see generous ammo allotments to cops who want to train extra. Maybe some places have that, no idea, but I know most don't.
Police Instructors have to show their ability to be able to teach classes. Then take classes to become a firearms instructor. And police trainers have to be able to shoot a score of 90% . PPSB instructor's have to recertify every 2 years with a minimum score of 92%>Also on a side note PPSB certified officers have to shoot a minimum of 80%. 10%higher than Leo's. Hope that answers your questions