Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-03-2013, 21:34   #541
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
Of the total American CCW universe just what percentage of them do you believe are capable of this standard?

What percentage of this universe who are unable to achieve this level of move-and-shoot-accuracy (under unexpected extreme duress) do you think carry C1?
I should have made it clear that you should be able to make standing hits in the head at 25 yards standing. Moving not so much for most. Moving 15 yards and inn yes to at least get hits an IDPA target.

I believe most are capable of this with proper training and practice. I think most people do carry c1 even it they have never even thought about these standards.

Under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 21:44   #542
Gills63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 184
Who cares if other people don't want to carry in C1? Its there choice. Racking a slide doesn't take very long. I preferred not to carry in C1 when I was carrying in a pocket holster and the gun didn't have an external safety. I no longer carry that setup, but I did. In my experience, accidents are more likely to involve those who don't respect the what ifs. A related thought is why do some guns have a safety?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Gills63 is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 21:46   #543
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandros View Post
If you want to make rational arguments in polite manner justifying your mode of carry - I'm all ears. I'm open to civil substantive discussion. But if you come here rehashing talking points you heard from someone without spending 2 seconds considering arguments against your talking points AND you delivering your talking points while insulting polite and thoughtful members of this forum - your opinions do not belong in reasonable conversation among intelligent men. Treat others with respect, and they will likely do the same for you. Until then, I couldn't care less about what you have to say.
It is not a talking point. It is common sense to carry a firearm for CCW with a round in the chamber. I did not have to hear it from someone else. I have always know this because I have common sense. I have meant no disrespect to you or anyone else on this forum. Sorry I hurt your feelings by saying you are wrong. I am not into making someone feel good about their wrong decisions that they are trying to justify to others. If you could care less about my posts then quit responding.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 21:52   #544
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
tnedator;20053755]Personally, I love the trigger, but it's much different than a Glock/M&P style trigger. As you say, it has a long pull and is more along the lines of the newer hammerless revolvers.

Yes, but if you do not feel comfortable carrying C1 with a Kahr then something is wrong.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 21:53   #545
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
I should have made it clear that you should be able to make standing hits in the head at 25 yards standing. Moving not so much for most. Moving 15 yards and inn yes to at least get hits an IDPA target.

I believe most are capable of this with proper training and practice. I think most people do carry c1 even it they have never even thought about these standards.

Under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that.
I believe that's beyond most police department qualifications and possibly beyond or on par with FBI qualifications. I'm in for more training/qualifications, but it has to be reasonable.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member

Last edited by tnedator; 03-03-2013 at 22:02..
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 21:58   #546
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I believe that's beyond most police department qualifications and possibly beyond or on par with FBI qualifications. I'm in for of more training/qualifications, but it has to be reasonable.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
The police qualification in Ohio is a joke and honestly most cops are not gun people and suck at shooting. FBI is better to be sure.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 22:04   #547
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
The police qualification in Ohio is a joke and honestly most cops are not gun people and suck at shooting. FBI is better to be sure.
I agree police standards aren't as high as they should be, but it also isn't reasonable to expect a higher standard from CCL holders than police standards.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-03-2013, 22:15   #548
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I agree police standards aren't as high as they should be, but it also isn't reasonable to expect a higher standard from CCL holders than police standards.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
If you are a gun person you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 03:05   #549
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
PhotoFeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,807
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth_squeeze View Post
Apropos your comment "lets also require that any person applying for a permit must clearly demonstrate that carrying a weapon is essential for protecting himself/herself from eminent danger of attack." ... I totally disagree with this. Having to show a "need" for a CC permit makes it way to difficult to obtain one, for the "need" in some places is made so difficult to prove that the permit is basically allowed ony for those who are very politically connected or have lots of money or power or all three. Ask those who live in New York or Maryland how that's working out for them.
This remark was total tongue-in-cheek. It followed 1911pro's comment about competency testing to get a CC permit.

We have quite enough firearm laws, thank you.
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 03:42   #550
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
PhotoFeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,807
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
I do think that the current training and testing standards are too low.

IMO, there should be a multi day course which includes extensive classroom time on the law and use of deadly force (this is covered to a degree in most/all states, but not the level it should be), there should be safety training, and then there should be some basic shooting/self defense shooting training. At minimum, two days, 4 hours in the classroom and 4 hours on the range each day. In fact, I think three or four days (wouldn't have to be consecutive, could be over three or four weekends) days of intensive training should be required.

While I fight all attempts to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights, at the same time, as responsible gun owners, I think there is a reasonable level of training that should be required before we carry our guns in the public for the purpose of defending ourselves.
This seems totally reasonable to me. My NRA course was two days with about 3/4 classroom and the rest range time. Requiring four days would not be out of the question. Some re-qualification standard is probably appropriate every x years, as well. Carrying a firearm is damn serious business.

I see folks at gun shows and gun shops buying their first handgun with the intention of only fulfilling the state's minimum requirement training, and that bothers me a lot. I witnessed a gent buying his wife a gun recently, and she didn't know the difference between a revolver and a semi-auto. Thats a scary proposition.

Achieving a passing grade in a mandatory course is one thing. Maintaining proficiency is quite another. My NRA two-day class was probably 10-15 years ago. A lot can be lost in that time. Part of our responsibility has to be staying 'current' with the law and gun handling skills. Participating in a forum like this can be part of that ongoing process by staying in touch with the gun 'community'.

In the final analysis, we are legally accountable for our individual behavior with firearms. If we ever have to use deadly force, or commit a deadly negligent act, our fitness to carry a weapon may well be called into question. At that point, the competence and judgement evaluation will be a lot more important than a CC permit test.

If my fitness to carry is ever examined, I don't expect to be criticized for my personal decision to carry C3. In fact, I believe my carry mode would be viewed as perfectly acceptable and consistent with public safety.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 03-04-2013 at 04:16..
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 04:36   #551
Smooth_squeeze
Senior Member
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gills63 View Post
Who cares if other people don't want to carry in C1? Its there choice. Racking a slide doesn't take very long. I preferred not to carry in C1 when I was carrying in a pocket holster and the gun didn't have an external safety. I no longer carry that setup, but I did. In my experience, accidents are more likely to involve those who don't respect the what ifs. A related thought is why do some guns have a safety?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Carrying in C1 or not, heck, why even have a mag full of cartridges in the gun, that presents its own problems. Just require that people carry their gun unloaded but allow them to have a loaded magazine close by, so they can do a quick mag insert, and rack the slide to get on with business. (Admittedly, being even allowed to carry a gun concealed or in the open is not yet allowed to law abiding citizens in the state of Illinois, although a 3 judge panel of the Federal courts struck down the Illinois law and gave them 6 months to come up with a concealed carry law, but I digress.) To be even safer, if safety is of the utmost concern, why not require carrying the gun in a zippered pouch, and the mags in another zippered pouch, to be absolutely positively certain there won't be an ND, at least until said mag is inserted into the gun. There are those who advocate such stuff.

As to why some guns have a safety... plenty of reasons. Safeties reduce the chances of having a gun go off when dropped, of if the carrier stumbles, and so on. There are also some circumstances where having a manual, on-off safety on a gun can be very good. One of the best reasons I've read has to do with those on SEAL teams, or similar teams, who have to board hostile ships by rope, for instance. Even with a DA action trigger like the one on the SIG, it's possible when falling to get an AD (ND might not even be the issue, we could open a can of worms here ). I'm not opposed to having a safety on a gun, although the sheer simplicity of the Glock 3-automatic safeties is excellent. On a self-defense handgun, in the stress of an attack, having the safety on and not realizing it can be life threatening. Chalk one up for Glock on that score. Ditto for FN Herstal, at least on the FNP-45, which has a long, heavy DA and crisp SA, with a separate safety too, if one wishes to engage it.

Besides that, why have a safety on a gun? Well, it can potentially reduce accidents if an unknowing third party gets ahold of the gun. Not supposed to happen, I know, but those things do happen. We don't live in a perfect world.
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 04:47   #552
happyguy
Man, I'm Pretty
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: You can't get here from there!
Posts: 15,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandros View Post
Agreed. Extensive training is absolutely lacking today. In some states, no training/exam is required - just shove the gun in your pants and you got yourself a ccw.
This is how it is here and has been for quite awhile. The State needs to keep its nose out and individuals need to be held accountable for their actions.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy
__________________
Proverbs 21:31 The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but victory is of the LORD.

"I refuse to tip-toe through life only to arrive at death safely."
happyguy is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:03   #553
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
If you are a gun person you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
And a lot do, by going to training or safety courses that are not mandated in any way.

However, that is a lot different than saying that the minimum qualification level for obtaining a CCL should be higher than most police departments require for their officers.
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:32   #554
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
And a lot do, by going to training or safety courses that are not mandated in any way.

However, that is a lot different than saying that the minimum qualification level for obtaining a CCL should be higher than most police departments require for their officers.
Like I said before. Maybe not a pass or fail, but make them run the coarse and realize this is the type of training that will help you in the real world. Most would do well. I agree with your earlier posts about more training.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:37   #555
SouthernBoyVA
Senior Member
 
SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Western Prince William County, VA
Posts: 3,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
It is in the end your choice to make. I believe all who carry a firearm should be competent enough and vigilant enough to carry with a round it the chamber. Should there be more strict standards to get a CCW permit? YES! I really had never thought that anyone would CC a firearm for personal defense with an empty chamber. Thank you for opening my eyes to this.
While this comes up somewhat frequently, it also runs up against a bit of a problem.... infringement. At what point does requiring training to some acceptable level become infringement? And is a requirement for training of any kind an infringement?

In the strict sense, any impediment to the ownership, bearing, and use of a firearm is an infringement, with the exception of those who should not possess firearms. So this is a bit of a slippery slope which if left to its own devices, could become much more than an infringement.

And then there is the issue of open carry. No training requirements there since in many states, that is the normal mode of carry (i.e. standard or default mode).

This does pose a bit of a dilemma in that on the one hand, many (most?) people want to impose some level of training on those who wish to carry concealed for the "common good" while others balk at any restrictions on exercising one of their most fundamental rights.

A whole other issue perhaps better left to another thread.
__________________
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
SouthernBoyVA is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:45   #556
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
While this comes up somewhat frequently, it also runs up against a bit of a problem.... infringement. At what point does requiring training to some acceptable level become infringement? And is a requirement for training of any kind an infringement?

In the strict sense, any impediment to the ownership, bearing, and use of a firearm is an infringement, with the exception of those who should not possess firearms. So this is a bit of a slippery slope which if left to its own devices, could become much more than an infringement.

And then there is the issue of open carry. No training requirements there since in many states, that is the normal mode of carry (i.e. standard or default mode).

This does pose a bit of a dilemma in that on the one hand, many (most?) people want to impose some level of training on those who wish to carry concealed for the "common good" while others balk at any restrictions on exercising one of their most fundamental rights.

A whole other issue perhaps better left to another thread.
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.

Last edited by 1911pro; 03-04-2013 at 07:48..
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:18   #557
Smooth_squeeze
Senior Member
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.
While I have sought out training, and taken part in it, and practice regularly, nevertheless I have a good number of friends who haven't. They have a CCW, too. Much as I might wish they would go for training, it hasn't happened. Should they be then be deprived of a CCW just because they haven't spent a lot of time with folks who train, and earn their livelihood at it? Of course not.

Some months ago I was shooting at an indoor range, and there were a few young fellows who were shooting so-so, and the local fellow who gives lessons/training was all over them trying to get them to sign up for his training sessions. It was almost vulture-like. Would it help them? I'm sure it would. Nevertheless, after plunking down a lot of money with someone for lessons, I'm not so sure they'd think their money would be well spent.

IMHO, if someone is really serious about getting better, they'll probably sign up, or find a friend who is an instructor, or could easily become one if they went through the certification process. I have several such friends, and they freely dispense their advice to friends. After all, they're friends. Also, not all advice is good.....

And instructors do vary in their approach to many different topics.

Having a certified instructor as a friend and shooting buddy is great. Have to say though that having an Army Ranger sniper to teach me has been even better. No, let me rephrase that, it's been waaaaaay better.

I think a lot of the training stuff will be sought out by those who really want to learn. Making it a requirement though could well be a slippery slope.
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:18   #558
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth_squeeze View Post

Even with a DA action trigger like the one on the SIG, it's possible when falling to get an AD (ND might not even be the issue, we could open a can of worms here ). I'm not opposed to having a safety on a gun, although the sheer simplicity of the Glock 3-automatic safeties is excellent. On a self-defense handgun, in the stress of an attack, having the safety on and not realizing it can be life threatening. Chalk one up for Glock on that score. ...

Besides that, why have a safety on a gun? Well, it can potentially reduce accidents if an unknowing third party gets ahold of the gun. ....
Without the Glock design, I doubt if we even have this long winded discussion about C1 or C3. Thee is no impediment to firing a round once the finger, or anything, enters inside the trigger guard. While some view that ready-to-fire as a weakness, Glock manages to tout that as a "feature". Some have bought that argument, but our Armed Forces have not.

Police forces use Glocks, so you have their stats on ND. What we really need is stats on ND for SigSauerP226 and Beretta M9, per capita.

I carry a Glock with nothing in chamber, but I would carry an M9 with one in chamber. The time it takes to cock an M9 hammer is about the same, for me, as racking the slide on Glocks. The heavier DA on an M9 and a P226 is sufficient safety for anything unintentional that gets inside trigger guard. But then... I'm not living in Afghanistan nor am I a Mob target.

I think you've pointed out what this discussion lacks: the merit of C1 and C3 on a non-Glock design, for civilian carry, law abiding civilian that is.
ModGlock17 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:24   #559
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.
Good point for freedom!

Just to point out another view, are we comfortable handing our driver licenses to young pups WITHOUT proof of successful completion of a driving school ???

Food for thoughts. It's a direct similarity. There are many young-pup likes, I'm sure you've seen them, at the guns counter for the first time.
ModGlock17 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:46   #560
vandros
10mm fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: southwest
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyguy View Post
This is how it is here and has been for quite awhile. The State needs to keep its nose out and individuals need to be held accountable for their actions.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But, this is a discussion for another day, my friend.
__________________
glock 4 gun; strider 4 knife
vandros is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:21.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 771
165 Members
606 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31