I had my CCW requalification training class last night and we had to shoot as part of it.

After the first 20 rounds shooting at 5 yards, I was filling magazines and looked over at my neighbor's targets. The lady two shooters over from me had only three holes about 6" above the bottom of full size silhouette target. Since we were all firing the specified number of rounds, she had a hit percentage of 15%.

During the next shooting relay I noticed her pulling down hard on the gun when she jerked the trigger, in anticipation of the recoil.

None of the range officers, offered her any advice or help so at the end of the 50 round qualification string she had eleven hits on the target with about four anywhere near the middle. I can only guess that they were from the five headshots that we were told to shoot.

The bad thing was, she passed.

So you would stop her from stopping her rapist or other bad guy and stop her from exercising
Her 2nd amendment rights.

Because she doesn't meet your idea of accuracy.

Did you bother to introduce your self and offer some advise.

Being accurate and well train is better but it is not a requirement of the 2nd or to defending oneself.

Of course then you do live in CA.

I commend her for trying. I have seen similar in requalification classes. Funny, a little help from other shooters usually goes a long way to better accuracy for the person in question. You could have helped her out a little, or is that illegal in California?

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
So you would stop her from stopping her rapist or other bad guy and stop her from exercising
Her 2nd amendment rights.

Because she doesn't meet your idea of accuracy.

Did you bother to introduce your self and offer some advise.

Being accurate and well train is better but it is not a requirement of the 2nd or to defending oneself.

Of course then you do live in CA.

No, I would stop her from probably killing an innocent bystander since under the most controlled conditions she's proven that she cannot operate a handgun safely enough to hit a man sized target at 5 yards. Under stress she would be spraying bullets in every direction.

If you will notice, one of my criticisms was that none of the range officers offered her any help or comments. This woman was obviously unsafe and not competent to operate a firearm and the instructors should have noticed it and not allowed her to re-qualify.

quote:

Originally posted by impala#03:
I commend her for trying. I have seen similar in requalification classes. Funny, a little help from other shooters usually goes a long way to better accuracy for the person in question. You could have helped her out a little, or is that illegal in California?

This is a controlled qualification with specific instructions of when to shoot, how much, etc. You cannot step off the line or else all shooting would be stopped. As a matter of fact we are instructed if for any reason we need to stop the firing line we are to put the gun down and step off the line and the instructor will call a cease fire.

There is no opportunity to speak to or help another shooter at any time during the firing session.

It was not the woman's first time qualifying, it was a renewal class so she's had at least 2 years to practice and shoot since we have to re-qualify every two years.

May I ask why the comments about living in California? What does this have to do with the point made by the OP?
Still the same ol' same ol', and not even on the PF!
Says a lot!
Peter.

If you haven't notice Peter CA isn't the most gun friendly state.

Here's a link about training and defending ones self

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2...hly-trained-for.html

Gun people love training. They revel in expertise. They gush over the incredible feats that expert gun users, from Annie Oakley to Jerry Miculek, can accomplish. Do not mistake me. I approve of training. Training is good. I have trained a lot of hours... and days... and years... and decades. I have trained military, police, and civilians. But large numbers of people use handguns very successfully with little or no training.

A case in point occurred recently in Ohio. From 10tv.com:

“She was armed and apparently fired multiple shots at him,” said Sgt. Dave Sicilia.

The woman’s son says he bought the gun for her a week ago to keep her safe now that she is living alone, but he never thought she would actually have to use it.

Police believe the suspect also broke into neighboring homes.

Nearby residents heard the shot.

"I got up and looked into my kids’ room and made sure they were all right,” said one person.

The burglary suspect was rushed to the hospital with serious injuries. He was pronounced dead shortly before 7:00 a.m.

Rest of the article at the link

[quote]This is a controlled qualification with specific instructions of when to shoot, how much, etc. You cannot step off the line or else all shooting would be stopped. As a matter of fact we are instructed if for any reason we need to stop the firing line we are to put the gun down and step off the line and the instructor will call a cease fire.

There is no opportunity to speak to or help another shooter at any time during the firing session.


I guess I don't understand why you can't help another shooter. I have requalified several times in two states, help is always there if needed. Sounds like things are a little uptight where you requalify.

I'm sure you are right, she had not shot her weapon since she got her concealed carry permit, but that is another issue.

Sh!t, who needs to train or qualify? Just come to Kansas and any idiot can carry any way they like. We don't need to actually KNOW how to use a gun, or which end is the dangerous one. Who cares that you can't hit your target at 2 feet. Nah, not here.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Sh!t, who needs to train or qualify? Just come to Kansas and any idiot can carry any way they like. We don't need to actually KNOW how to use a gun, or which end is the dangerous one. Who cares that you can't hit your target at 2 feet. Nah, not here.

Nothing bad has happened in the other constitutional carry states Larry you been reading to much anti gun BS.

Where the blood in the streets in Vermont AZ Alaska ect.

It's always the same story from the anti-ccw, anti-gun, anti-anything folks. Legalize ccw and the streets will run with blood. Hard facts show just the opposite, crime down in states with ccw. But let's not confuse the facts with hysteria

I guess I am still not sure what gun friendly has to do with it. In Florida, the course to get a CCW does not have to include any actual shooting with a real gun (my information may be out of date here). It certainly was not when I took the course. A good course will, but, the shooting skill is irrelevant. There is no "qualification" with a firearm. After that, you just pay your money and renew every few years. My impression is that states DO look at the requirements to obtain a CCW before granting "reciprocal" arrangements.
I seriously doubt whether there are any anti-gun or anti-CCW folks on this forum, although they may be labelled as such if they disagree with the cognoscenti. Flordida has, for a long time, had a law allowing a firearm to be in the car, in a glove box for example. For many, that is sufficent.
Peter.

Um, why does anyone submit to a 'course' to carry a firearm? Why are the words 'shall not be infringed' so difficult to understand? How many founding fathers took a 'course' in order to carry a firearm? Folks have been sucking on the teat of government for so long they can't imagine life without same. Disgusting and anti-American. RIGHTS TRUMP LAWS, PERIOD.

shootshellz, you are damn right. Why do a need a tax stamp to own a full auto firearm? Why can't I own an RPG or an anti tank rifle? How can I be expected to overthrow the government without these? Please explain your opinion on such matters. While you are at it, please explain your position on States Rights, seeing as the concealed carry laws are promulgated by the state and NOT the Federal Government.
Peter.

We use to be able to own all of those things there were no restrictions before 1934.

All the bad things you believe would happen didn't.

Before 1968 any one with the money could order most any thing threw the mail if one had the money.

Bad things didn't happen.

When the government becomes afraid of their arm citizens one needs to be more afraid of the government then the arm citizens.

More mass murders have been committed by government then by their citizens.

quote:

All the bad things you believe would happen didn't

Oh! I clearly remember reading in the paper about some patriot who decided to shoot up a farmer's tractor with his Boyes anti tank rifle. After the farmer abandoned the vehicle (under fire), the patriot continued to shoot it to pieces. I guess this is not "bad" in your opinion. Or perhaps such happenings are just the price of freedom?
Prohibition gunfights? Same price?
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

All the bad things you believe would happen didn't

Oh! I clearly remember reading in the paper about some patriot who decided to shoot up a farmer's tractor with his Boyes anti tank rifle. After the farmer abandoned the vehicle (under fire), the patriot continued to shoot it to pieces. I guess this is not "bad" in your opinion. Or perhaps such happenings are just the price of freedom?
Prohibition gunfights? Same price?
Peter.

People have been ran over and killed intentionally with automobiles, this is bad and autos should be outlawed by your logic.

The anti tank weapon didn't rifle didn't do this on its own. Bad people exist and that is the crux of the situation. The 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against an over reaching government and the people had equal armament.

People should have the right to carry even if they aren't a good shot.

quote:

The 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against an over reaching government and the people had equal armament.

EXACTLY! And if a few folks get killed, well, Hell, that's the price of freedom!
So, exactly which Republican Presidential candidate is going to espouse this position?
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

The 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against an over reaching government and the people had equal armament.

EXACTLY! And if a few folks get killed, well, Hell, that's the price of freedom!
So, exactly which Republican Presidential candidate is going to espouse this position?
Peter

History has shown that people still get killed even with great restriction. You have no point.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

The 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against an over reaching government and the people had equal armament.

EXACTLY! And if a few folks get killed, well, Hell, that's the price of freedom!
So, exactly which Republican Presidential candidate is going to espouse this position?
Peter

Cocaine, heroine are illegal I fact we have a "war on drugs". How is that going?
Your post is simply justification for wreaking our rights and constitution.

jwp, why not just answer my question? if your position is so obvious then WHICH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS GOING TO PROCLAIM IT?
Get it? Just answer the question.
The answer BTW is NONE! Because there just aren't that many of you wackos around. Even committed Republicans would not vote for this position.

"Cocaine, heroine are illegal I fact we have a "war on drugs". How is that going? "
Well perhaps you should ask the Republican presidents who started and continued it Nixon, Bush etc. This and harsh sentences for possession have proven to be counter productive and a failure. But, now that I have told you who originated it, no doubt you will change your mind and say how successful it has been!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
jwp, why not just answer my question? if your position is so obvious then WHICH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS GOING TO PROCLAIM IT?
Get it? Just answer the question.
The answer BTW is NONE! Because there just aren't that many of you wackos around. Even committed Republicans would not vote for this position.

"Cocaine, heroine are illegal I fact we have a "war on drugs". How is that going? "
Well perhaps you should ask the Republican presidents who started and continued it Nixon, Bush etc. This and harsh sentences for possession have proven to be counter productive and a failure. But, now that I have told you who originated it, no doubt you will change your mind and say how successful it has been!
Peter.

You flat out don't get it. It isn't a democrat/republican issue both are destroying the country I grew up in. Why don't you answer the question that I asked. The answer is it isn't working more regulation are not and we're not the answer. Countries with little to no gun rights for their citizens have high rates of gun violence.

"Countries with little to no gun rights for their citizens have high rates of gun violence."

That is complete BULLS--T and you know it!. No one could be that ignorant. Well, maybe not!
Try this:

In 2010, roughly 70% of US homicides were by gun whereas in Britain including Northern Ireland only 9% were by gun. In the US in 2012 the total firearm-related death rate including both suicides and homicides was 10.2 per 100,000; in France the comparative figure was 3.0; in Britain, 0.25 . So the US firearms-related death rate was about 40 times that of Britain!"
Peter

Educate yourself

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...e-rest-of-the-world/

quote:

The dubious distinction of having the most gun violence goes to Honduras, at 68.43 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, even though it only has 6.2 firearms per 100 people. Other parts of South America and South Africa also rank highly, while the United States is somewhere near the mid-range. Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.

I guess Peter thinks it was legal for the IRA to have all their weapons.

quote:

Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.

Educate YOURSELF, unless you think that comparing the USA with Honduras, South Africa and South America is the kind of company you wish to keep and the standard by which you wish to be judged!!!

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.

Educate YOURSELF, unless you think that comparing the USA with Honduras, South Africa and South America is the kind of company you wish to keep and the standard by which you wish to be judged!!!

Peter

They have lower ownership yet a higher per capita rate of gun violence which is and was my point. We had a higher gun ownership per capita in the past with less gun related violence, which indicates other factors. According to the FBI more people are murdered in the U.S. With hammers and, or other blunt objects than rifles each year.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...ar-than-with-rifles/

Fact is in areas with the most restrictive firearm laws in the U.S. Gun violence is the highest.

quote:

According to the FBI more people are murdered in the U.S. With hammers and, or other blunt objects than rifles each year.

Murdered by RIFLES!! Oh my! What a huge surprise!
Enough of this garbage!
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
"Countries with little to no gun rights for their citizens have high rates of gun violence."

That is complete BULLS--T and you know it!. No one could be that ignorant. Well, maybe not!
Try this:

In 2010, roughly 70% of US homicides were by gun whereas in Britain including Northern Ireland only 9% were by gun. In the US in 2012 the total firearm-related death rate including both suicides and homicides was 10.2 per 100,000; in France the comparative figure was 3.0; in Britain, 0.25 . So the US firearms-related death rate was about 40 times that of Britain!"
Peter

and that small island off of the coast of Europe is plagued by home invasions in the broad daylight as criminals know no one is armed. so, strict gun laws breed their own brand of trouble. you are an anomaly, peter. you claim to be a gun guy yet you constantly run republicans down. you do realize that your positions don't mesh well with the party you support, don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

According to the FBI more people are murdered in the U.S. With hammers and, or other blunt objects than rifles each year.

Murdered by RIFLES!! Oh my! What a huge surprise!
Enough of this garbage!
Peter

The garbage is in your posts, sorry.
You fail to understand the facts that stricter gun laws bring more violence, if you want the facts they are out there, but your perception is your reality.

If one buys into the thinking that some guns are worse then others it is a easy jump to all guns are bad.

The ultimate goal of the anti's is out lawing all firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
If one buys into the thinking that some guns are worse then others it is a easy jump to all guns are bad.

The ultimate goal of the anti's is out lawing all firearms.

Exactly!

The murder rate in Florida as well as gun violence was very high in the 70's until they made CCW easier to obtain and gun violence dropped dramatically. The highest rate of gun violence in this country is located in the most restrictive areas.

My original comments were about the original post, and maybe only a little more. To that point, Frank should not care if anyone can hit the side of a barn with a gun, who cares. Carry away. That's all. Come to Kansas where ANY idiot can carry any way they like. I even believe ANY out of state idiot has the same right while here.

quote:

The highest rate of gun violence in this country is located in the most restrictive areas.

If one drops the number of murders from the high crime areas are rates are equal or less other countries.

quote:

That's all. Come to Kansas where ANY idiot can carry any way they like. I even believe ANY out of state idiot has the same right while here

So Larry what qualifications to you think one should have to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

quote:

If one drops the number of murders from the high crime areas are rates are equal or less other countries.

Well, why not drop the number of murders from THEIR high crime areas?
Peter.

Pdog, like I said, ANY idiot can carry in Kansas. I did not say you should have qualifications. Hell, why should anyone care if someone even knows which end of a gun to hold? Not me. What I may choose for myself has nothing to do with our rights. As long as I am better trained and better practiced, that is what I care about. As long as I am better trained and more vigilant and situationally aware of my surroundings than the clinically depressed, psychotic individual that is on prescription drugs that have side effects of suicidal thoughts and actions, I'm cool. Allowing ANY idiot gang banger to carry any way they choose is cool by me since just being a banger doesn't mean you committed a crime. It just ensures I keep my training up.

I think you object to my term ANY idiot. Let's face it, that's what most people are, especially where guns are concerned. My personal experience has taught me that.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

If one drops the number of murders from the high crime areas are rates are equal or less other countries.

Well, why not drop the number of murders from THEIR high crime areas?
Peter.

The same areas with the strictest gun control laws, again proving they do not work. They operate outside the law is why they are called "outlaws".

Peter;

Here is a rather interesting article/study on the issue of more guns/crime-and is a scholarly work done by professors etc. Kates and Mauser of Harvard. A long read, but worth it if one s interested in facts and correlations done rater thoroughly.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...atesMauseronline.pdf

HPMaster, thanks very much. I have started reading the article but have not got very far. Have you read it? It is very sloppy thinking to say the least.
The title of the article is: "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?" I think the answer is obviously NO. In any case, the statement I quoted still stands and I will continue to read your article, but, for heaven's sake, where did this come from:
"Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates." It's all a Soviet plot???!!! We should compare ourselves with Russia?
"In 2010, roughly 70% of US homicides were by gun whereas in Britain including Northern Ireland only 9% were by gun. In the US in 2012 the total firearm-related death rate including both suicides and homicides was 10.2 per 100,000; in France the comparative figure was 3.0; in Britain, 0.25 . So the US firearms-related death rate was about 40 times that of Britain!"
I am not claiming any causal connection between gun ownership and firearm related deaths. That seems to be a matter of religious belief. I was simply challenging the statements made in this thread. Anecdotally, when at home, I keep a firearm in my vehicle 90% of the time, and carry concealed perhaps 70% of the time. When in the UK I obviously am not armed, I travel the "tube" until after midnight and have NEVER felt unsafe walking home from the tube station. My relatives and friends who still live in the UK do not feel at risk there either. Now this is NOT proof or anything like that. It is simply an attitude.
Obviously simply banning gun ownership without confiscating the guns will do nothing to reduce the number of guns "out there". And that, of course is why banning guns in the USA will not solve the "gun violence" problem either. With about 300 million guns in the USA, the time for that is well past!
Unless things have changed in the last 6 months, the police in London are STILL not armed on a routine basis.
My problem is comparing us with Honduras and other South American countries, or South Africa and saying "See how much better we are'! That makes NO sense to me and is just BS IMHO.
The good news is that after peaking in the 1990's, crime rates seem to be declining in the USA, although still higher than in Western Europe.
Interestingly enough jwp posts this:
"Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations." and doesn't see anything wrong with it!!!! Many on this forum I suspect have the view that the number of gun related deaths is just the price one pays for the right of gun ownership and is therefore acceptable. If so, just say so, don't twist the truth by lie and innuendo.
The issue is "firearms related deaths" and "gun violence", so the number of personal assaults by knife is IRRELEVANT, as are the number of attacks by shovel etc.
By the way, you might want to Google 'Harvard paper by Kates and Mauser"!!!
Peter

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/3290987/posts


Brazil: Expanded Background Checks, Registration, and Gun Deaths at a 35-Year High
breitbart.com ^ | 5/18/2015 | AWR Hawkins

Posted on ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2015‎ ‎9‎:‎01‎:‎57‎ ‎AM by rktman

Over the last 15 years, Brazil has instituted more and more gun control, including gun registration and criminal and mental background checks for gun ownership. Today they have “restrictive” gun control, and one more thing—a 35-year high for gun deaths in the country.


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...