Do you CCW? Then watch this video........

[22_Shooter 1,560]

..........and be prepared to get angry and be entertained at the same time:

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s&feature=related

 

 

 

 

So many biased variables in there, it's not even funny. Some of my main gripes:

 

1) They're using people who have little, or no experience with guns/shooting (and the kid with a whopping 100 hours is not what I would consider "experienced"). If the point of the video was to show how CCW permit holders most likely won't be able to make a difference, then why not use actual CCW permit holders??????

 

2) They're using a firearms instructor as the "shooter". This is about as sensible as using non-shooters as their CCW'ers.

 

3) The shooter comes in and after shooting the teacher, immediately focuses ALL of his attention and firepower on the person with the gun, even before they present the gun. This is not realistic.

 

4) The carriers all have long baggy shirts on, which of course will prohibit your draw and why the first kid got hung up. Dress appropriately if you carry, and you won't have this problem.

 

5) The blonde girl, who actually did fairly well, hit the shooter in the leg. They failed to mention that even if she may be dead or seriously wounded at this point, the shooter still has a gunshot wound that will slow him down and possible lower his kill-count.

 

6) Their "experienced" guinea pig with the 100 range hours pretty much laid down. Whether he had a gun on him was irrelevant. He seemingly lacked the will to live at that point and just curled up to die.

 

 

Besides all of that, they fail to show how carrying will somehow make you more susceptible to death or great bodily injury. Switch up that classroom scenario; no one in the room has a gun. The shooter barges in and starts shooting like he did before. Now you have zero defense. How is this better than the scenario where a bystander has a concealed weapon and at least a chance at making a difference? They fail to say, because well, they can't.

 

 

 

Overly biased video is overly biased. I couldn't even make it to part 2 of the video, because shit like this just pisses me off.

 

/rant off

[Gaddis 1,689]

1) They're using people who have little, or no experience with guns/shooting (and the kid with a whopping 100 hours is not what I would consider "experienced").

 

Realize this report was created by a bunch of "Journalists" (and I use that term loosely here ) who also have little or no experience in fair and balanced news reporting either.

 

I don't even know why most reasonably intelligent people would even watch this garbage and then believe any of it, remember it was created by the same class of journalistic turds who had to resort to using remote controlled incendiaries to get GM truck gas tanks to explode on impact on their "hack" story a decade or so back on how dangerous these trucks are in the event of an accident.

 

If someone is dumb enough to believe anything the major media outlets put out as factual reporting, then there is no hope in having an intelligent conversation with them anyway.

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

(and I use that term loosely here )

 

 

 

Thats even looser than Lohan.......

[Gaddis 1,689]

(and I use that term loosely here )

 

Thats even looser than Lohan.......

 

Who, Miss FireCrotch? I bet she's as tight as a nun's sausage wallet.

 

Remember, her (once fabulous) knockers looked like two flabby fried eggs when she went through her starving phase awhile back, but (now that she started eating again) they look most bouncy & poke-able again.

[thebuns1 4,323]

1) They're using people who have little, or no experience with guns/shooting (and the kid with a whopping 100 hours is not what I would consider "experienced").

 

Realize this report was created by a bunch of "Journalists" (and I use that term loosely here ) who also have little or no experience in fair and balanced news reporting either.

 

I don't even know why most reasonably intelligent people would even watch this garbage and then believe any of it, remember it was created by the same class of journalistic turds who had to resort to using remote controlled incendiaries to get GM truck gas tanks to explode on impact on their "hack" story a decade or so back on how dangerous these trucks are in the event of an accident.

 

If someone is dumb enough to believe anything the major media outlets put out as factual reporting, then there is no hope in having an intelligent conversation with them anyway.

 

this type of trash is aimed at the population that does not support armed citizens or guns in general. and by mis informing this retarted population, seems to deepen their beliefs that more guns = more crime. to me its simple shit propaganda for the garbage of our society that has forgotten what got America its freedoms in the first place.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

What a crock of shit... From the git go it is constructed to fail for the so called CCWs.

[dashowdy 141]

Anyone who is actually serious and ccw's regularly would have faired much better than there so called experienced testers, they should have gotten some people who frequently ccw and tried them I bet it would not have gone the same, and why is it they sat the person in the same chair everytime, mix it up so the bad guys dont automatically know where the guy is what a stupid experiment.hell maybe there is more than one person carryiing in the class.

[kdbutler 563]

BULLSHIT! Dislike.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

The second time watching it... I'm even more annoyed.

 

I, and just about every other regular CCW I know dress for success, aka, easy access.

No long & clingy shirts and definitely no fucking bulky gloves & vision limiting helmets, give me a fucking break.

Most of live life in condition Yellow, and anyone, even a complete moron would be in Orange if not Red, in these scenarios... You KNOW something is going to happen.

 

Just as in my skydiving (600+ jumps), I go through emergency drills as to ingrain my thought process/reaction &muscle memory and thus garner immediate action.

I've little doubt that I'll react to a scenario involving drawing my CC, just as I've done in no less than six reserve rides ( emergency chute deployments).

My first reserve ride was almost anti-climatic, I simply reacted as I'd trained, didn't have to stop and think.

My everyday awareness and my drawing my CC is just about as practiced.

 

I've been in some high stress situations, react or die, in both skydiving and driving (I'm a trucker) and I've never choked or gave up, unlike some of these asswipes.

........................................

 

Again, what a crock of shit!

One day, one week or whatever, of giggling bullshit training doesn't prepare one to deal with such.

It must be a established way of life, a mindset, in order for one to survive.

[22_Shooter 1,560]

1) They're using people who have little, or no experience with guns/shooting (and the kid with a whopping 100 hours is not what I would consider "experienced").

 

Realize this report was created by a bunch of "Journalists" (and I use that term loosely here ) who also have little or no experience in fair and balanced news reporting either.

 

I don't even know why most reasonably intelligent people would even watch this garbage and then believe any of it, remember it was created by the same class of journalistic turds who had to resort to using remote controlled incendiaries to get GM truck gas tanks to explode on impact on their "hack" story a decade or so back on how dangerous these trucks are in the event of an accident.

 

If someone is dumb enough to believe anything the major media outlets put out as factual reporting, then there is no hope in having an intelligent conversation with them anyway.

 

I agree 100%.

 

It's like when I randomly end up reading anti-gun websites....it gets me so pissed and annoyed.

[DogMan 2,343]

This is one of those things that can be staged to come out any way you want it to, depending on what your "agenda" is. And there is no question what their agenda is. A couple of convenient aspects to this farce is that the gunman is a trained firearms instructor which I would venture to say is rarely the case in a real scenario. Also the gunman bursts in with an absolute element of surprise and goes right for the armed individuals. Again, not realistic. Many times in school shootings a gunman goes to many rooms where students in all but the first room would have some forewarning and be able to prepare to defend. What a shame that real police and instructors are involved in setting up this misleading sham.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

This is one of those things that can be staged to come out any way you want it to, depending on what your "agenda" is. And there is no question what their agenda is. A couple of convenient aspects to this farce is that the gunman is a trained firearms instructor which I would venture to say is rarely the case in a real scenario. Also the gunman bursts in with an absolute element of surprise and goes right for the armed individuals. Again, not realistic. Many times in school shootings a gunman goes to many rooms where students in all but the first room would have some forewarning and be able to prepare to defend. What a shame that real police and instructors are involved in setting up this misleading sham.

Amen!

[timy 1,185]

I pretty much agree with the consensus but do believe getting a CCW permit should be a little tougher. At a minimum, you should be required to demonstrate acceptable proficiency with your weapon. I didn't have to do anything but be bored for four hours and give them my money. They then handed me my Not suitable for framing certificate to show the Sheriff. Too easy.

[dayofruin 425]

I pretty much agree with the consensus but do believe getting a CCW permit should be a little tougher. At a minimum, you should be required to demonstrate acceptable proficiency with your weapon. I didn't have to do anything but be bored for four hours and give them my money. They then handed me my Not suitable for framing certificate to show the Sheriff. Too easy.

I only had to pay part online, get printed, and have the chief of police sign off. 2 weeks later I had my permit. I agree that you should at least have to show proficiency. In some cases here, some people have a CCW that shouldn't even be allowed around firearms... Let alone carry one.

[Arik 565]

As far as Pa goes they got it right. YOU DONT NEED ANY CLASSES OR COURCES to have a CCW. Just a clean record and $50. And quite a lot of people do just that. They get a permit, buy a gun, maybe put a box of ammo through it to see if it functions and if they like it and thats it.

[timy 1,185]

I pretty much agree with the consensus but do believe getting a CCW permit should be a little tougher. At a minimum, you should be required to demonstrate acceptable proficiency with your weapon. I didn't have to do anything but be bored for four hours and give them my money. They then handed me my Not suitable for framing certificate to show the Sheriff. Too easy.

I only had to pay part online, get printed, and have the chief of police sign off. 2 weeks later I had my permit. I agree that you should at least have to show proficiency. In some cases here, some people have a CCW that shouldn't even be allowed around firearms... Let alone carry one.

 

Yeah, most people who apply have at least a modicum of experience, but not all of them. This could be a recipe for disaster and create a backlash after a few "free fire" incidents such as you see on YouTube.

 

 

As far as Pa goes they got it right. YOU DONT NEED ANY CLASSES OR COURCES to have a CCW. Just a clean record and $50. And quite a lot of people do just that. They get a permit, buy a gun, maybe put a box of ammo through it to see if it functions and if they like it and thats it.

 

And therein lies the problem. You have to show you can drive a car before getting a license but just pay the money and you can carry a gun. Odd.

 

 

 

[Ken1961 14]

As far as Pa goes they got it right. YOU DONT NEED ANY CLASSES OR COURCES to have a CCW. Just a clean record and $50. And quite a lot of people do just that. They get a permit, buy a gun, maybe put a box of ammo through it to see if it functions and if they like it and thats it.

 

Pretty much the same here in GA. Costs a little more and there are backround checks by the GBI and FBI.

 

As to training; the constitution stats, "shall not be infringed".

 

That means exactly that. These so called reasonable restrictions are in absolute violation of the constitution. PERIOD!

 

I obey the law because I don't want to spend time in jail, but I work from within to change the laws that restrict us here in GA. A group I belong to has been very successful with changing those laws bit by bit. Just recently we got a law passed overturning a 140 yr old Jim Crow law forbiding carry at "public gatherings". The law was so broadly written that even being caught crossing the parking lot of the Georgia Dome, while carrying a weapon, was a crime.

 

We're even expanding the list of weapons covered by the Georgia Weapons License. Currently it covers knives with blades over 5". We're working do have it include any self-defense weapons.

 

You can learn more about it here: http://georgiacarry.org/

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ken1961

[Ken1961 14]

I pretty much agree with the consensus but do believe getting a CCW permit should be a little tougher. At a minimum, you should be required to demonstrate acceptable proficiency with your weapon. I didn't have to do anything but be bored for four hours and give them my money. They then handed me my Not suitable for framing certificate to show the Sheriff. Too easy.

I only had to pay part online, get printed, and have the chief of police sign off. 2 weeks later I had my permit. I agree that you should at least have to show proficiency. In some cases here, some people have a CCW that shouldn't even be allowed around firearms... Let alone carry one.

 

Yeah, most people who apply have at least a modicum of experience, but not all of them. This could be a recipe for disaster and create a backlash after a few "free fire" incidents such as you see on YouTube.

 

 

As far as Pa goes they got it right. YOU DONT NEED ANY CLASSES OR COURCES to have a CCW. Just a clean record and $50. And quite a lot of people do just that. They get a permit, buy a gun, maybe put a box of ammo through it to see if it functions and if they like it and thats it.

 

And therein lies the problem. You have to show you can drive a car before getting a license but just pay the money and you can carry a gun. Odd.

 

 

 

People get confused by this a lot. Driving is not a constitutional right. The right to bear arms for defense of self, among other things, IS a constitutional right.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ken1961

[YARP 300]

I would like to pee in the Cheerios of whom ever came up with the idea for this video.

[DogMan 2,343]

I pretty much agree with the consensus but do believe getting a CCW permit should be a little tougher. At a minimum, you should be required to demonstrate acceptable proficiency with your weapon. I didn't have to do anything but be bored for four hours and give them my money. They then handed me my Not suitable for framing certificate to show the Sheriff. Too easy.

I only had to pay part online, get printed, and have the chief of police sign off. 2 weeks later I had my permit. I agree that you should at least have to show proficiency. In some cases here, some people have a CCW that shouldn't even be allowed around firearms... Let alone carry one.

I disagree. Who gets to set the bar at what is "proficient" enough and what is not? Does someone who doesn't quite make it over that bar not have a right to defend themselves? People who may be perceived as less "proficient" and less likely to be carrying such as the elderly or handicapped could be targeted for just that reason, and they in fact could be left unarmed for just that reason. That's a very slippery slope.

[MT Predator 2,294]

This video is old BTW. Although the intent for making the video is clear, I'll play devil's advocate here. Look at the stats on Police related gunfights and how many of those LEOs who constantly train for this are gunned down. From the Military side of the house, there are plenty of Uncle Sam's trained killers who freeze the fuck up in a firefight, regardless how much reflexive fire training they have been through.

The "Flee or Fight" instinct does weird shit to people when a stressful event like this takes place. Most CCW holders will puff up their chest and denounce fleeing but you don't know how you are going to react until it happens. People will act differently to separate incidents as well. Best you can do as a CCW holder is train, train, train. Most importantly, with the pistol and holster you carry with. Use a shot timer to see how fast you really are, then use it to gauge your improvements. One Officer in the video quoted a statement I have heard at courses, pertaining to Marksmanship being a perishable skill. That one stuck with me from the first time I heard it. Although the video is clearly staged, there is a lot of truth to it, including requirements to attain a CCW.

[Ken1961 14]

This video is old BTW. Although the intent for making the video is clear, I'll play devil's advocate here. Look at the stats on Police related gunfights and how many of those LEOs who constantly train for this are gunned down. From the Military side of the house, there are plenty of Uncle Sam's trained killers who freeze the fuck up in a firefight, regardless how much reflexive fire training they have been through.

The "Flee or Fight" instinct does weird shit to people when a stressful event like this takes place. Most CCW holders will puff up their chest and denounce fleeing but you don't know how you are going to react until it happens. People will act differently to separate incidents as well. Best you can do as a CCW holder is train, train, train. Most importantly, with the pistol and holster you carry with. Use a shot timer to see how fast you really are, then use it to gauge your improvements. One Officer in the video quoted a statement I have heard at courses, pertaining to Marksmanship being a perishable skill. That one stuck with me from the first time I heard it. Although the video is clearly staged, there is a lot of truth to it, including requirements to attain a CCW.

 

I agree that marksmanship is a perishable skill. I agree completely that anyone who chooses to use any firearm for self defense should train to the best of their ability. Or any weapon for that matter.

 

However, I do not agree that training should be a requirement for issuance of a License/permit to carry. My right to the best possible self defense tool, given me by my creator, according to the framers of the US Constitution, does not end at my front door or the edge of my property. It is inherent to my very being.

 

As someone posted above, there are folks out there who, for many practical reasons, could not fulfill the training requirements of certain states. Their right is no less inviolate than mine, or yours.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ken1961

[MT Predator 2,294]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

 

I have no problem with training, should be mandatory.

[Ken1961 14]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

 

I have no problem with training, should be mandatory.

 

Sure, let's start training requirements for voicing your opinion, blogging, refusing unreasonable searches, practicing religion Let's license churches and ministers, gotta meet the requirements ya know.), Oh and let us not forget that we should henceforth restrict the right to petion our government when we don't like what's going on above. After all, the government knows what's best right?

 

Really, what p[art of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

But then I was raised with weapons of all sorts from the time I was 10 yrs old. I can understand why you'd be fearful if you haven't got the experience.

 

And please, stop comparing apples to turds. You DO NOT have a right to drive. You DO have a right to keep and bear. Period.

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

 

I have no problem with training, should be mandatory.

 

Sure, let's start training requirements for voicing your opinion, blogging, refusing unreasonable searches, practicing religion Let's license churches and ministers, gotta meet the requirements ya know.), Oh and let us not forget that we should henceforth restrict the right to petion our government when we don't like what's going on above. After all, the government knows what's best right?

 

Really, what p[art of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

But then I was raised with weapons of all sorts from the time I was 10 yrs old. I can understand why you'd be fearful if you haven't got the experience.

 

And please, stop comparing apples to turds. You DO NOT have a right to drive. You DO have a right to keep and bear. Period.

 

You are missing the point

[Ken1961 14]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

 

I have no problem with training, should be mandatory.

 

Sure, let's start training requirements for voicing your opinion, blogging, refusing unreasonable searches, practicing religion Let's license churches and ministers, gotta meet the requirements ya know.), Oh and let us not forget that we should henceforth restrict the right to petion our government when we don't like what's going on above. After all, the government knows what's best right?

 

Really, what p[art of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

But then I was raised with weapons of all sorts from the time I was 10 yrs old. I can understand why you'd be fearful if you haven't got the experience.

 

And please, stop comparing apples to turds. You DO NOT have a right to drive. You DO have a right to keep and bear. Period.

 

You are missing the point

I guess so.

 

Anyway, I'm not arguing further. There is, in my mind, only one right way in this case. And I think you're just as firm in yours.

 

So, shall we agree to disagree?

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

 

I have no problem with training, should be mandatory.

 

Sure, let's start training requirements for voicing your opinion, blogging, refusing unreasonable searches, practicing religion Let's license churches and ministers, gotta meet the requirements ya know.), Oh and let us not forget that we should henceforth restrict the right to petion our government when we don't like what's going on above. After all, the government knows what's best right?

 

Really, what p[art of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

But then I was raised with weapons of all sorts from the time I was 10 yrs old. I can understand why you'd be fearful if you haven't got the experience.

 

And please, stop comparing apples to turds. You DO NOT have a right to drive. You DO have a right to keep and bear. Period.

 

You are missing the point

I guess so.

 

Anyway, I'm not arguing further. There is, in my mind, only one right way in this case. And I think you're just as firm in yours.

 

So, shall we agree to disagree?

 

Ok chest bump

 

 

 

Due to a request the pic has changed

Edited September 22, 2011 by Dad2142Dad

[22_Shooter 1,560]

The mandatory-or-not debate on training for CCW permits seems to be quite divided, even amongst gun lovers. I remember seeing a lot of differing views on the subject in the Carolina section of Arfcom when a bill was about to be passed in SC that got rid of the current mandatory class/range time for a CCW permit.

 

Everyone has their own opinion. Mine, is that the current range/class time required here is so easy, there might as well not be a requirement for it. 36 out of 50 shots, anywhere in the black on a standard silhouette at distances ranging from 7' to 25' I believe it was. We had some really inexperience shooters in our class, and they passed this test with flying colors.

 

The written portion was equally as easy.......seeing as how it was open-book and common sense.

 

 

So where should the line be drawn? Is this what most people would consider to be "proficient" with a handgun? Or do we make the test harder? If so, how much harder? So much harder that only people with thousands of range hours and extensive knowledge on handguns can pass?

 

 

The way I see it, there are already a handful of states that do not require any sort of training/testing at all, for their residents to carry a concealed weapon. I don't know of any more accidental shootings or innocent bystanders being shot in those states, compared to the rest of the country.

 

 

Just my .

[kdbutler 563]

You are missing the point

 

Maybe many of us on here are missing the point then, Dad. Not to be argumentative, as RKBA issues are something I'm very passionate about. I'm just curious to know what you'd consider reasonable training requirements for CCW, given our Big Government's tendency to overreach beyond its constitutional boundaries?