I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. I hear you. My opinion is that if a responsible civilian finds a credible instructor with real world (realistic not theory based or unproven technique) experience (experience is my biggest interest) such as: Larry, Kyle lamb, Brian Mckibben, Pat mcNamara, Etc etc... Then depending on how serious they are about it, Id agree with that individual teaching those tried and proven methods that are based on reality. What I really meant to get through in this post is that I wish civilian instructors WOULD learn and have access to this invaluable reality based training before they instructed other individuals. Reason being, Most people that consider themselves "advanced shooters" change their outlook completely when faced with reality based training.
Sidearms & Scatterguns NRA Conceled Carry Qualifications for Civvies/ Do they really check the Quality?
- Thread starter Macleod212
- Start date
I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. I hear you. My opinion is that if a responsible civilian finds a credible instructor with real world (realistic not theory based or unproven technique) experience (experience is my biggest interest) such as: Larry, Kyle lamb, Brian Mckibben, Pat mcNamara, Etc etc... Then depending on how serious they are about it, Id agree with that individual teaching those tried and proven methods that are based on reality. What I really meant to get through in this post is that I wish civilian instructors WOULD learn and have access to this invaluable reality based training before they instructed other individuals. Reason being, Most people that consider themselves "advanced shooters" change their outlook completely when faced with reality based training.
Suppressive fire cannot be justified in a civilian context. I wish Suarez would stop teaching that unadulterated crap. It is not a 'new' method for accomplishing anything other than getting military guys shot between their side panels and sending civilians to jail.
Last edited:
Thats fine but irregardless is there a lawful way to launch bullets at an attacker? If youre talking about round accountability then YES I wholeheartedly agree.
kind of an asshurt response. I dont recall saying that.
Well what if law abiding citizens took back the advantage by killing the guy before he could kill someone else? what if the law abiding citizen was aggressive and solid with his ability to eliminate the threat? Are you shooting to wound here? or are you hoping the guy will drop his gun when you show him yours? what if he doesnt?
Thats romantic but I disagree that there is a "legal way" to shoot someone. for instance: if I shoot the guy before he kills anyone, is that too aggressive? is it illegal? Or do I have to wait for him to shoot/kill me or someone else before the law is satisfied enough for me to respond? This all seems very unneccessary.
Again friend. I have no idea what you are talking about. youre quotes seem very hypothetical and theory based here. You sound like one of the guys that likes to argue for the sake of arguing. Im not going to argue with you but I think youre being very unrealistic. Do I agree that laws must be obeyed? YES. Do I agree that citizens should be responsible? YES and also trained, and round accountable as well. But I have absolutely no idea what in the realm of reality you are talking about with regards to lawfully shooting an assailant that is already up and ready to shoot you and others? what law must be satisfied before you can return accurate fire???
I guess I'm different. I stress that monetary or property isn't worth taking someone's life, whether they deserve it or not.
Two exceptions are home invasion and car jacking (that's explained in the class.
Regardless whether its justified, regardless if you'd be exempt from civil actions if justified (as it is in Wyoming), taking someone's life isn't a pleasurable experience, it will haunt you the rest of your life. It's not worth it for property that can be covered by insurance.
I'm not talking about soldiers in combat, I'm talking civilians, mostly women who have to protect their selves and families and the live with it.
Suppression?????? I don't know what its like in Glaslow, but in Wyoming, you have to account for each bullet you fire, not to mention we're not talking about an Infantry fire team we're talking about grandma, some single mother towing toddlers, etc, I doubt they have any more ammo then what's in the gun, laying down fields of fire is not an option.
No, shoot to stop.
You bet your ass I am.
You re-act accordingly, again, to stop, not to wound, not to kill, but shoot to stop, ONLY IF, you can avoid the situation.
Two exceptions are home invasion and car jacking (that's explained in the class.
Regardless whether its justified, regardless if you'd be exempt from civil actions if justified (as it is in Wyoming), taking someone's life isn't a pleasurable experience, it will haunt you the rest of your life. It's not worth it for property that can be covered by insurance.
I'm not talking about soldiers in combat, I'm talking civilians, mostly women who have to protect their selves and families and the live with it.
Suppression?????? I don't know what its like in Glaslow, but in Wyoming, you have to account for each bullet you fire, not to mention we're not talking about an Infantry fire team we're talking about grandma, some single mother towing toddlers, etc, I doubt they have any more ammo then what's in the gun, laying down fields of fire is not an option.
No, shoot to stop.
You bet your ass I am.
You re-act accordingly, again, to stop, not to wound, not to kill, but shoot to stop, ONLY IF, you can avoid the situation.
Last edited:
Sir, I have no idea who "SUAREZ" is nor do I have any idea what in the hell you are talking about. Im not going to respond to you anymore because I feel that we live on two different planets and nothing is getting done between you or I. Its seeming counterproductive. I have no desire to argue with you because Ive experienced none of the things in my life that you are referring to. I think youre reading pamphlets.
Sir, I am from glasgow but I live in fayettevile, NC. Suppression is firing accurate rounds on target (if youll read at least one of my posts youll find that Im a massive fan of round accountability. No one is talking about an infantry fireteam exept the gentleman named graham. ANYTHING IS AN OPTION. running around optionless is a dead mans game.
I dont bet with my ass sir. Im straight. ha ha. I agree you want to stop the threat. so do I. I dont want to stand there and discuss the laws with him while hes trying to kill me.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
You're not different: You are correct. Deadly force may never be used solely to protect or to recover property. Lindy and I discussed this a while back, with specific regard to the liberal Texas use of force statute, on one of the self-defense Threads. In general, a person may use deadly force in self-defense only in response to another’s deadly force attack. The two exceptions you mention are not really exceptions in the classic sense because you are not protecting property: The law assumes that in those circumstances the criminal is there to do harm to your person.
Macleod212, you say that you have no idea who Suarez is, or what I am talking about, yet you accuse me of being the one who is 'reading pamphlets'. Hmmm.....
You claim that you don't want to argue yet you keep re-defining what you said: First you say that don’t care about the law; then you say that you do. First you are in favor of suppressive fire; then you re-define suppressive fire to mean accurate fire. First you complain about other instructors in your area not having a clue; then you admit that you don’t know what they teach. First you say that ‘there’s no legal way to shoot someone’; then when Kraig and I misunderstand you, you blame us. If you are an instructor then you know that it is your responsibility to properly communicate the material, and not to confuse your students.
What must be satisfied before you return accurate fire? Good question. The use of force, both deadly and non-deadly, is subject to reasonable limitations. The force you are permitted to use is limited to that amount you reasonably believe is necessary to repel the attack or to protect yourself from harm (or to affect an arrest). If you exceed this theoretical amount of force your act is criminal to the extent it is unreasonable. This is true regardless of whether your use of force was otherwise legal.
Last edited:
Hmmmm. That is by far the most incompetent response I have ever received from a human being. Explain how reading a pamplet would inform me of who suarez isnt? Did this person invent the firearm and do they control its usage for the entire world? Do I need to acquire their permission to use one?
I asked you to explain to me how to legally shoot someone. I asked YOU if there was a legal way to shoot someone.
Im gonna go out on a limb and say you didnt read my posts. to be civil Im not going to accuse you of being stupid and incomprehensible. Its not up to me to teach you reading comprehension. its up to you to read the post. Im not in control of your mind sir. frankly you speak like a child.
OHHHHH!!! Is that like.....when the guy points a gun at you and hence becomes and armed threat??? 0_0
I believe you sir are the type of person Im describing in this thread. So worried about teaching people the laws and less worried about teaching them how to shoot or what it feels like to shoot under duress from your own personal experience. I believe the laws should be taught. obviously but all Ive seen you state is that you are more worried about the laws than you are about the situation which tells me youve probably never been in one. Yes I believe that when you let go of a bullet you cant take it back which is why theres round accountability and using the sights before you let it go. apart from that you have said nothing relative to experience only theory. Laws dont stop bullets. action does.
Last edited:
You missed the point.
To answer your questions: There are more than one set of circumstances under which shooting someone is not a crime. But you are discussing self-defense, which is not a way to ‘legally shoot someone’. Self defense is a legal defense to what would otherwise be a crime. I have explained below, in detail, the legal right of self defense. You missed it, but the answer is there. Also, someone can be an armed threat to you before he points a gun at you. Maybe have another look at that definition as well.
A good instructor listens to what his students say. I never once said that I am ‘more worried about the laws than [you are] about the situation’. I have no idea where you got that from but now I understand why you didn’t quote me on it. And no one here ever posted that the law could somehow ‘stop bullets’. I said one’s actions in self defense must at all times be lawful. Admittedly it was an obvious point, but you missed it twice.
Your original post, before you edited it, stated: “So since I don’t know who suarez is that equates that I must have zero life experience. Shove it up your ass mate.” The inability to take criticism and a short temper are two character traits not helpful to an instructor. I had said nothing about your life experience or about your experience with defensive pistol craft. I commented only about your demonstrated knowledge of firearms instruction based on what you yourself posted in your own thread, which was fair game.
If it will make you feel better I will admit that your dick is bigger than mine. What I have or haven’t done probably isn’t all that important to anyone but me anyway. But if you really think that what I posted shows my incompetence, stupidity and irrationality then you are mistaken. What it shows is how you are being perceived by your peers and how poorly you communicate.
ROEs, difficult as they are to follow sometimes, are easier to understand than is the law of self defense. But as instructors for civilians we don’t have the luxury of running from complexity simply because we don’t understand it. We do a disservice to civilian students when we fail to teach this critical aspect of the discipline just because we find the rules to be inconvenient.
Last edited:
Anyone that has anything valuable to add please continue to post. We've hit an unnecessary and uninformative hump in our posts but Id like to here someone else's opinion.
I think Its safe to say I've missed ALL of your "points" if ever you had any amongst your ramblings. In the same manner you've misinterpreted ALL of my posts in the attempt to glorify yourself rather than comprehend what was in front of you.
I've taken my CCW courses in two states, Ohio and now Texas. Both states have their course very much focused on the laws of legal carry and legal self defense. I was very lucky to have an instructor in Texas who was extremely competent and was willing to give everyone in her class a discount for the following day to do her defensive carry class.
Macleod, CCW and defensive carry are two completely different things. What you are have consistently referred to in your posts is an offensive carry, almost to the point it would seem that you would look for a reason to shoot, which is the wrong mentality to have. As a CCW or CHL, how ever your state labels it, you must be in the right to pull the trigger as many times to stop the treat and not a single time more. No matter what you are going to be investigated. You must be a defendable person and the use of force must always be in the right. By a defendable person I mean some one who doesn't outwardly show aggression, who doesn't look for a fight, who doesn't run their mouth off that they would shoot some one, ect ect. If you are a "undefendable" person, even with a with in the laws use of force, there is a good change you will get charged with murder, and your attitude and how you present yourself will be called into question. I have been lucky in all the years that I have been carrying, and I have only had to draw my weapon one time, one time too many might i add, but I never had to fire. The suspect fled once he saw he would be challenge, the police were called and he was arrested a short time later. This, believe it or not is how most situations play out. The robbers don't expect you to fight back and that with intimidation of putting a gun in your face you will cave. Stand your ground, get into a good defensive position and draw yours with full intent to pull the trigger if the time comes, and most of them will run away before you get the chance to pull.
Macleod, CCW and defensive carry are two completely different things. What you are have consistently referred to in your posts is an offensive carry, almost to the point it would seem that you would look for a reason to shoot, which is the wrong mentality to have. As a CCW or CHL, how ever your state labels it, you must be in the right to pull the trigger as many times to stop the treat and not a single time more. No matter what you are going to be investigated. You must be a defendable person and the use of force must always be in the right. By a defendable person I mean some one who doesn't outwardly show aggression, who doesn't look for a fight, who doesn't run their mouth off that they would shoot some one, ect ect. If you are a "undefendable" person, even with a with in the laws use of force, there is a good change you will get charged with murder, and your attitude and how you present yourself will be called into question. I have been lucky in all the years that I have been carrying, and I have only had to draw my weapon one time, one time too many might i add, but I never had to fire. The suspect fled once he saw he would be challenge, the police were called and he was arrested a short time later. This, believe it or not is how most situations play out. The robbers don't expect you to fight back and that with intimidation of putting a gun in your face you will cave. Stand your ground, get into a good defensive position and draw yours with full intent to pull the trigger if the time comes, and most of them will run away before you get the chance to pull.
To be fair, there are lousy instructors in nearly every group of instructors I have been around, with one exception. Instructors come from the same population basis as everyone else, so it stands to reason that they will usually represent a sample of thet population. Even many LE agencies I have been associated with had a fair share of crummy (not actually lousy, just not that good) instructors.
The one notable exception was a law enforcement training facility in the pacific northwest where each instructor was personally selected and vetted by the commander who took great pride in the quality of his program, and it showed.
Graham's last post hit so many things spot on. Law enforcement trainees get so frightened about all the laws, rules, and legal decisions they have to follow, that we actually had to incorporate a new class where trainees had to be "re-trained" into actually getting used to shooting when it was appropriate. I was one of the instructors that had the job of goading them into shooting me with simunitions. The lengths I had to go to to make some shoot me showed how valuable this training was.
So, Graham is absolutely correct about the advantages the bad guys have. Anyone with nothing to loose (financially, or going to prison) has the luxury of ignoring legal issues. If anyone cares about loosing anything financial, or doing time in prison, they cannot afford to ignore legal issues. And that presumes it was a good shoot to begin with. Many people with otherwise "good shoots" end up with surprise convictions because of a weird technicality proper training would have explained to them.
The one notable exception was a law enforcement training facility in the pacific northwest where each instructor was personally selected and vetted by the commander who took great pride in the quality of his program, and it showed.
Graham's last post hit so many things spot on. Law enforcement trainees get so frightened about all the laws, rules, and legal decisions they have to follow, that we actually had to incorporate a new class where trainees had to be "re-trained" into actually getting used to shooting when it was appropriate. I was one of the instructors that had the job of goading them into shooting me with simunitions. The lengths I had to go to to make some shoot me showed how valuable this training was.
So, Graham is absolutely correct about the advantages the bad guys have. Anyone with nothing to loose (financially, or going to prison) has the luxury of ignoring legal issues. If anyone cares about loosing anything financial, or doing time in prison, they cannot afford to ignore legal issues. And that presumes it was a good shoot to begin with. Many people with otherwise "good shoots" end up with surprise convictions because of a weird technicality proper training would have explained to them.
Yes sir. I agree. most times domestically they do run when faced with a threat as most of them were looking for an easy target and get discouraged when that taste of reality hits their lips. Interesting view from the legal side. thanks for posting. Just read the other part of your post. Its not so much that I would be looking for a fight as much as I would be looking to end one as quickly as possible.
Last edited:
My biggest reason for starting this post is to find out why people that are certified to "teach" aren't people that are "qualified" to teach. is it simply about money? quota? P.S. I honestly have little time for Graham as he's conducted himself like a wanker. So forgive me I haven't really read many of his posts.
I happened to have a talk with a member of the DOJ here in NC a bit ago. we were discussing this topic and apparently he says that in NC there is NO specific data or qualifications/ experience that must be met in order for ANYONE (pending a clean record) to become certified in any discipline of firearms. He says he's personally seen many individuals that he wouldn't care to be around holding a firearm that pay their money and pass. I asked him about Grip, sight picture, round accountability, etc. he just laughed and said. Nope. He said although he agreed, I was expecting way too much from the certification side of things. So I asked why? why would you certify someone to teach that hasn't been properly instructed themselves? He couldn't give me a straight answer other than pure speculation and a number of the same opinions I have myself based on untrained individuals posing more of a liability than they do as an asset. I realize there are many many individuals that want to instruct but I cant see money as a proper acceptance to unleash these people into the world to do their worst. all the while pretending that "gun safety is key!!"
Macleod212,
In the past I have not been shy about writing about any disagreement I may have with Graham when I think it is appropriate. We don't always share the same opinions, but in this specific instance (posts immediately preceding mine) I agree with him.
I think that being certified as an NRA instructor is much like anything where people need licenses, or certifications. Drivers licenses are a perfect example. Just going 3 miles to a store usually shows me a half dozen people whose driver's licenses I would revoke if I had the power to do so. It is the same with firearms instructors, and/or gun shop employees.
I also think that most of the people on this site have put in a great deal more study, work, and practice than the normal hunter, or gun owner. As a result of all that experience, training and knowledge, other gun people often seem quite lacking in what they know.
There is also the issue of knowing things, but not being able to teach effectively. Many people have great knowledge, but they simply can't convey that knowledge to others.
I think the most helpful thing in answering your question is the comparison to drivers licenses. Just because someone has a drivers license, that does NOT mean that they drive as well as I think they should in order to keep their license. It is the same with NRA certifications for firearms instructors.
A very interesting, and much harder question is how would anyone go about setting up a different national, or international body to certify firearms instructors. All sorts of questions come to mind such as type of certification (marksmanship, tactics, safety, type of firearm, shooting discipline, level of certification, law enforcement, military, civilian, and on and on). My point is that setting something like that up would require a great deal, and is much more involved than simply teaching the 4 basic rules.
In the past I have not been shy about writing about any disagreement I may have with Graham when I think it is appropriate. We don't always share the same opinions, but in this specific instance (posts immediately preceding mine) I agree with him.
I think that being certified as an NRA instructor is much like anything where people need licenses, or certifications. Drivers licenses are a perfect example. Just going 3 miles to a store usually shows me a half dozen people whose driver's licenses I would revoke if I had the power to do so. It is the same with firearms instructors, and/or gun shop employees.
I also think that most of the people on this site have put in a great deal more study, work, and practice than the normal hunter, or gun owner. As a result of all that experience, training and knowledge, other gun people often seem quite lacking in what they know.
There is also the issue of knowing things, but not being able to teach effectively. Many people have great knowledge, but they simply can't convey that knowledge to others.
I think the most helpful thing in answering your question is the comparison to drivers licenses. Just because someone has a drivers license, that does NOT mean that they drive as well as I think they should in order to keep their license. It is the same with NRA certifications for firearms instructors.
A very interesting, and much harder question is how would anyone go about setting up a different national, or international body to certify firearms instructors. All sorts of questions come to mind such as type of certification (marksmanship, tactics, safety, type of firearm, shooting discipline, level of certification, law enforcement, military, civilian, and on and on). My point is that setting something like that up would require a great deal, and is much more involved than simply teaching the 4 basic rules.
Yea I can see your point. I'm not really interested in talking about graham, but I will say that the individual was slinging a fair amount of assumption based nonsense my direction. I have little time mentally for anything other than actual points devoid of emotional nonsense. I will say this because I've noticed a few people saying this to me: I have never at any point been under the assumption that an individual could just go around and blast people away because he felt like it. I realize that laws must be followed in the civilian world, much like in the military world, but I assumed that was a given. The reason I haven't brought up much about laws is because there are many many differences that vary per state and there are many individuals on here from all over. For example, I have been told many times by LE here in NC not to shoot to wound if a situation arises because the individual can sue you. Courts are most always hindsight and most here are pretty liberal. Much like the trayvon martin incident it doesn't matter what the circumstances are as most courts are simple minded to the point as there is an individual shot, and one that's not. so they see the shot individual as the victim. unless there are a number of witnesses courts here usually find in favour of the criminal. Its happened a large number of times that I know of. same with the guys that Break into peoples houses, twist their ankles on the way out and sue the victim. For that reason I mostly hear shoot to kill. aside from all that nonsense there are tons of different scenarios with tons of different outcomes. too many to post in a lifetime and on a small forum like this which is why I stuck to capability rather than laws and outcomes based on laws. Which is where Graham was trying to take it mostly, of which I have no interest. Situations are all different. that should be common sense. but it isn't. Having said that I find your analogy interesting and it has helped me to understand better (in addition to my previous post) how things are done with regards to certification. thanks for your posts. I do appreciate it.
First you dismiss what I said and accuse me of rambling:
And you say I am the one acting like a wanker?! Priceless.
Kindly think before you post, and don't add misinformation to your disinformation. You haven't a clue.
Then you later admit to not having really read many of my posts:
So again you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, yet when I point that out you throw a tantrum and attack me.
And you say I am the one acting like a wanker?! Priceless.
Speaking of assumptions based on nonsense, I'll save you the embarrassment of me taking it point by point but suffice it to say that you are absolutely and completely making this stuff up:
Kindly think before you post, and don't add misinformation to your disinformation. You haven't a clue.
Last edited:
Macleod,
As the point of this thread is certification of firearms instructors, I will pm you with info about shoot to wound/shoot to kill and why having either one as your objective (in civilian rather than military scenarios) can be problematic. I don't want to get this thread away from it's basic question about problematic certification of firearms instructors.
As the point of this thread is certification of firearms instructors, I will pm you with info about shoot to wound/shoot to kill and why having either one as your objective (in civilian rather than military scenarios) can be problematic. I don't want to get this thread away from it's basic question about problematic certification of firearms instructors.
Why the PM? No need to be apprehensive about posting: I only bite back when someone bites me first. Besides, if it's good information we can all learn from it. Please share.
Any so-called 'problematic' certification of firearms instructors issue is dead in the water. Asking why some instructors don't know their stuff, and why an organization with no mandate and no enforcement powers can't mandate or enforce something leaves the field of discussion wide open as to why the world is the way it is. There's no certification 'problem' regarding firearms instructors, it's just that there's no single national body that does certification. Good thing, too, because there are many different kinds of instruction for many different kinds of purposes. Nor would I want a national certification for firearms instructors any more than I would want a national concealed carry law which mandates and controls the training, because the question is always one of who decides what is relevant and what isn't, and when there's only one body, and one standard, that usually creates a fiefdom and the result ends-up being more about politics than about the quality of training. Why are some 'certified' people not 'qualified'? I dunno... Why are some school teachers better than others? Why do half of all doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class? The firearms instructor group is like any other: It's a very human system; standards vary; people are people; politics is politics. And if it became too hard to get certified at doing something no one would be certified. So, take all qualifications with a grain of salt and don't assume competence. Welcome to the real world.
The truth is that organizations like IALEFI do have standards. For those of you interested in standards and methods for law enforcement firearms instructors I happen to be published on the subject: Have a look at IALEFI's The Firearms Instructor magazine, issue 16 and issue 20. I have trained civilians, law enforcement, and the military. On that basis I disagree with what Mcleod said about the training of military and civilians being similar. It is not; and for good reason. There are also very big differences between civilian and law enforcement training, but less so.
The short answer to the question posed is that in the civilian world we shoot only to eliminate an immediate deadly threat. We don't shoot to wound because doing that negates the justification for the use of deadly force. And we don't shoot to kill because murder is a specific intent crime and when we act in self defense we don't form the intent to kill another human being. This is an integral part of CCW training as well as LE training, and must be taught by the instructor and understood by the student whether we want to talk about it, or care to understand it, or not.
Blah blah blah Im in love with myself as a civilian who knows everything there is to know about nothing but chooses to proclaim it anyway. That's what ive been reading from now on when you post
Ive got the answers I needed, no thanks to your self absorption.
Did you feel attacked? ha ha ha if youre that emotional and insecure I cant see why youd be posting your nonsense on a public forum. Yes I read some of your blather but after realizing it was more about your pissing contest than it was an actual insight I barely read the rest of it. both sides of my mouth? better than both sides of my arse.
Right. so the quality of civilian instructor is A-OK with you then? or am I just making up the fact that many have chimed in on to be so. that there are many many instructors that lack any skillset whatsoever. Im glad youre ok with the fact that the person saving you might kill you before the person trying to kill you. If youre ok with fractercide then by all means carry on. Youre an idiot.
Last edited:
WHOA.....
Now if you read our post you'll know Graham and I don't agree about a whole lot, but in this case we agree 110%.
I'm totally against mandatory training, or certification, that leads to control and we have too much of that now. Instructors are like mechanics, there are good and bad (as well as everything else). In a free market we want to be able to shop around and find what fits our needs.
If you think a certain trainer is not too hot, then find another, but don't force your ideas on others. What works in NJ may not work in WY. Certainly not from DC where standards would come from.
I appreciate your insight. Thanks for the PM. its more clear to me now.
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about quality assurance. I was talking about the instructor being able to shoot straight and teach the same methodology to others. Its like im speaking a foreign language here. everyone wants to shit their pants and take things into a frenzy. please leave the spazzing to graham.
Im done with posting on this. UNKnown, Papa three zero and many others answered my question. There are too many spazmoids taking this and making it into something its not for the sake of pretending that they are the authority. Thanks for bastardising my posts. any case and regardless of what that knob jockey graham writes after me (because his involvement isn't information of course. its the last word, which is why Ive lost interest. I was looking for information, not to fight with a child minded idiot over the internet.) Its amazing to me how emotionally involved individuals get over the fukin internet!!!!!
Larry Vickers was absolutely right "the internet is full of people who have nothing to say but say it anyway." Thanks to those of you that gave valid and useful information. I appreciate your time.
Larry Vickers was absolutely right "the internet is full of people who have nothing to say but say it anyway." Thanks to those of you that gave valid and useful information. I appreciate your time.
Then you may want to read those posts again.
Speaking of self-absorption, don't assume that I am posting solely for your benefit.
You are correct. It is. Your description is more accurate. My mistake.
If you mean fratricide, that is the act of a person killing his or her brother. That's not even relevant to the discusion. As for the name calling, it's against the forum rules. But good name calling is, at the very least, correctly punctuated.
Are you really done this time, or is this like the last three times you said that you were done posting?
I know Larry. Larry's a good guy. I first met him in the 80's. Even he is not shy to admit that he has a big mouth. But who said that your thread was going nowhere: You and I finally agree on something. LOL!
...And there's no pretending involved: I happen to be an authority on your topic. That you don't like my answers doesn't make them less true. That could be the root of your problems here.
Hmmmm... Never be a Jedi: Too impatient that one.Macleod212 said:
Last edited:
I should have joined in on this many posts ago. Thought about it, wanted to see what the "experts" had to say about the topic.
I'm an NRA-certified pistol instructor. Basic. Also firearms safety in the home and personal protection. RSO too.
Grew up shooting BB guns mostly, .22 LR occasionally, rarely a pistol. First shot a full-size pistol (M1911 .45 acp) in basic training as I was assigned to help the post's officer's requalify and clean their guns afterwards and there was a lot of ammo left over. Ditto later as a medic in Germany, we'd go out to the range once a year to qualify and I'd help the RSO shoot up all the leftovers at the end of the day. Most of the doctors and nurses in the unit didn't even "like guns" so they'd shoot the minimum to qualify and walk away. Even the enlisted medics didn't "like" shooting. More for us. Rock and roll!
Got formal pistol training in Officer's basic, advanced course, and then again at the 25th ID (L) when I was a flight surgeon. Smoked that last course, some pistol combat course with and without a gas mask and real-world distractions.
Bought a Glock 17, Ruger SP101, Beretta 92FS and a handful of other guns from the mid 80s to around 1994. Would go to the range maybe once a month just to keep up basic skills. Doing my best to keep up with the one gun a month law.
I HAD been taking some shooting courses, more like informal training by NSA spooks and other agency guys at Ft. Meade's Rifle & Pistol Club off and on in the late 1990s. This was a LOT of action-reaction and confrontational shoot-don't shoot scenarios. RSO would line us up on target and scream out things like "I'm going to KILL you m*therf*cker," or "I'm going to KISS you" and we'd all laugh when a few guys would shoot. A lot of cops in that group. Had my first close-call with a negligent discharge when a Baltimore cop shot while clearing her weapon from the holster and shot a round DOWN the line just in front of me. Scary. I also shot with a local cop several times at a steel range (Monocacy Pistol Club) and not only did he tell me he didn't get the kind of training we were doing (back then we could move tables, barrels, bring torsos in closer for ATM, carjacking, home invasion scenarios until the old low-T board members and the club lawyer decided there was too much risk of someone getting an ow-ie), we gave him a lot of insight into how well civilians were trained compared to police, that police had no idea what they might be facing in the community at large. He only shot about 50 rounds a year for qualification. For a while there I was going through at least a thousand rounds a month if not more (this was even before owning a couple machine guns and surplus components were so widely available I could roll my own 9mm for 7 cents and .45 acp for about 15 cents a round - never thought I'd look at the Clinton years with any level of nostalgia), not that I'm a crack shot by any means, but I'm comfortable handling, carrying, shooting, and knowing when to use guns.
Took the NRA cert. course the weekend of labor day in 1999. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Had some loose plans with my brother-in-law to buy a range in WV (Westlance was for sale at the time, Mark Ewing told me to make an offer), but it was my brother-in-law. He's an a**hole. Plan fizzled out. Have since trained over a hundred people, most one-on-one (I was even teaching some Aussie and German and English friends until the NRA recently asked us NOT to do this due to, well, f*cking lawyers), and have run several classes for women (largest group was 17) mainly because I find they're easier to teach than men. Every American male seems to be a firearms expert and they get defensive as hell when you try and correct, well, just about anything. Grip, stance, target acquisition, not covering you with the muzzle, etc. Also, I shot a home invader when I was in High School. Turned out to be a former inmate just out of prison on a rape charge. He broke into the house where my mom was, I heard her scream and I grabbed a pistol, charged into the laundry room and shot him several times. He ran out of the house, I called the cops, he showed up in an ER and went back to prison. Lesson learned: use a larger caliber gun (I kept a Colt pocket auto, .25acp in my nightstand for a while back then, my older brother's, St. Pete PD didn't even take it for ballistics or anything else). I figure a woman is better defended with a projectile weapon than a simple scream.
I've taken combat pistol and carbine lessons locally in recent years, learned some point shooting and a few other tricks. Somewhere along the way someone mentioned shooting pistol prone. A very useful technique. Not for day one. Taking advantage of cover and concealment is something I mention but don't practice/train in the NRA basic course. Nor do I get into the legal issues. I leave that for the lawyers. I tell people they should search out the laws on when it's appropriate to shoot, what's legal, what to tell the cops. I teach to the manual, no less, sometimes more depending on experience and ability/receptiveness. I often refer people to Ayoobs and Quigley's books on shooting and self-defense. I'm not some ueber-macho SF/SEAL trying to teach someone to be on "the teams." I figure my role, what I'm comfortable with, is introducing beginning shooters to the sport, instilling a basic level of confidence, getting them comfortable with weapon handling and SAFETY, equipping them with the proper KSAs for shooting, and, I hope, getting them hooked on it and politically aware and active.
She has cover (engine block), he has partial concealment, very little, if any, cover.
I'm an NRA-certified pistol instructor. Basic. Also firearms safety in the home and personal protection. RSO too.
Grew up shooting BB guns mostly, .22 LR occasionally, rarely a pistol. First shot a full-size pistol (M1911 .45 acp) in basic training as I was assigned to help the post's officer's requalify and clean their guns afterwards and there was a lot of ammo left over. Ditto later as a medic in Germany, we'd go out to the range once a year to qualify and I'd help the RSO shoot up all the leftovers at the end of the day. Most of the doctors and nurses in the unit didn't even "like guns" so they'd shoot the minimum to qualify and walk away. Even the enlisted medics didn't "like" shooting. More for us. Rock and roll!
Got formal pistol training in Officer's basic, advanced course, and then again at the 25th ID (L) when I was a flight surgeon. Smoked that last course, some pistol combat course with and without a gas mask and real-world distractions.
Bought a Glock 17, Ruger SP101, Beretta 92FS and a handful of other guns from the mid 80s to around 1994. Would go to the range maybe once a month just to keep up basic skills. Doing my best to keep up with the one gun a month law.
I HAD been taking some shooting courses, more like informal training by NSA spooks and other agency guys at Ft. Meade's Rifle & Pistol Club off and on in the late 1990s. This was a LOT of action-reaction and confrontational shoot-don't shoot scenarios. RSO would line us up on target and scream out things like "I'm going to KILL you m*therf*cker," or "I'm going to KISS you" and we'd all laugh when a few guys would shoot. A lot of cops in that group. Had my first close-call with a negligent discharge when a Baltimore cop shot while clearing her weapon from the holster and shot a round DOWN the line just in front of me. Scary. I also shot with a local cop several times at a steel range (Monocacy Pistol Club) and not only did he tell me he didn't get the kind of training we were doing (back then we could move tables, barrels, bring torsos in closer for ATM, carjacking, home invasion scenarios until the old low-T board members and the club lawyer decided there was too much risk of someone getting an ow-ie), we gave him a lot of insight into how well civilians were trained compared to police, that police had no idea what they might be facing in the community at large. He only shot about 50 rounds a year for qualification. For a while there I was going through at least a thousand rounds a month if not more (this was even before owning a couple machine guns and surplus components were so widely available I could roll my own 9mm for 7 cents and .45 acp for about 15 cents a round - never thought I'd look at the Clinton years with any level of nostalgia), not that I'm a crack shot by any means, but I'm comfortable handling, carrying, shooting, and knowing when to use guns.
Took the NRA cert. course the weekend of labor day in 1999. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Had some loose plans with my brother-in-law to buy a range in WV (Westlance was for sale at the time, Mark Ewing told me to make an offer), but it was my brother-in-law. He's an a**hole. Plan fizzled out. Have since trained over a hundred people, most one-on-one (I was even teaching some Aussie and German and English friends until the NRA recently asked us NOT to do this due to, well, f*cking lawyers), and have run several classes for women (largest group was 17) mainly because I find they're easier to teach than men. Every American male seems to be a firearms expert and they get defensive as hell when you try and correct, well, just about anything. Grip, stance, target acquisition, not covering you with the muzzle, etc. Also, I shot a home invader when I was in High School. Turned out to be a former inmate just out of prison on a rape charge. He broke into the house where my mom was, I heard her scream and I grabbed a pistol, charged into the laundry room and shot him several times. He ran out of the house, I called the cops, he showed up in an ER and went back to prison. Lesson learned: use a larger caliber gun (I kept a Colt pocket auto, .25acp in my nightstand for a while back then, my older brother's, St. Pete PD didn't even take it for ballistics or anything else). I figure a woman is better defended with a projectile weapon than a simple scream.
I've taken combat pistol and carbine lessons locally in recent years, learned some point shooting and a few other tricks. Somewhere along the way someone mentioned shooting pistol prone. A very useful technique. Not for day one. Taking advantage of cover and concealment is something I mention but don't practice/train in the NRA basic course. Nor do I get into the legal issues. I leave that for the lawyers. I tell people they should search out the laws on when it's appropriate to shoot, what's legal, what to tell the cops. I teach to the manual, no less, sometimes more depending on experience and ability/receptiveness. I often refer people to Ayoobs and Quigley's books on shooting and self-defense. I'm not some ueber-macho SF/SEAL trying to teach someone to be on "the teams." I figure my role, what I'm comfortable with, is introducing beginning shooters to the sport, instilling a basic level of confidence, getting them comfortable with weapon handling and SAFETY, equipping them with the proper KSAs for shooting, and, I hope, getting them hooked on it and politically aware and active.
She has cover (engine block), he has partial concealment, very little, if any, cover.
Last edited:
You bring up a good point, and one that no one has mentioned so far: A firearms instructor who is not a lawyer must not give legal advice. At least one state addresses this issue by mandating that a lawyer speak for one hour during each CCW class regarding the law of self-defense in that state. However, as you pointed out, in any class that goes beyond safety and marksmanship there are inevitable questions and discussion regarding when to shoot/not shoot, how to shoot (kill/wound/stop/shot placement/how many rounds and why), and what to do when it's over (follow-up controls/reload and reholster/call 9-11). Any instruction that borders on tactics, or includes post-shooting advice (which is not legal advice), if it is given must be legally sound. Because it is only opinion there are no standards, or enforceable checks and balances, on the quality of that information.
Last edited:
Graham,
You and I seem to agree on this topic. My reason for the PM was that my response to Mcleod212 digressed from the OP's original inquiry about firearms certifications and went onto other topics about shoot to kill/shoot to wound. I dislike it when people get onto a thread about one topic, and begin to steer it onto something completely different, so I wanted to stay on topic in this thread.
My PM to Macleod was almost word for word what you put in your last paragraph in an earlier posting about the issue of shoot to wound, or shoot to kill. My reasons and background for that was the same as yours. But that gets me off the topic of lousy instructors, and onto a discussion about use of force, force continuum, appropriate levels of force and so on. I thought it inappropriate for me to go that direction in this thread as I wanted to stay on topic.
I also agree with everyone about not wanting someone telling me what I can, must, or cannot teach as an instructor. Then the issue could easily become who is worthy of knowing technique A, and B, and who isn't. I like free exchange of knowledge based on the instructor's evaluation of students.
Just as a martial arts instructor wouldn't teach a goofy kid with no impulse control how to break someone's neck easily, a firearms instructor needs a similar ability to evaluate what and who to teach.
I have seen plenty of lousy firearms and martial arts instructors. Sometimes it seems that their primary qualification is that they have the keys to the door of the dojo, or range. Lousy instructors have been around ever since people started teaching anything, and I would rather the prospective students do a proper job of evaluating an instructor's knowledge and ability to teach than I would want governmental oversight of what/who can teach, and/or what they can teach. There are plenty of people with a great amount of knowledge or skill, but some of them simply can't teach.
Finding an instructor with both knowledge and the ability to teach is a real treasure. There have been hack instructors for thousands of years, and there will be more of 'em long after I am gone. Even if we were able to eliminate the current crop of hack instructors, there would just be a new crop of hacks to take their place.
I would prefer caveat emptor to governmental oversight and/or interference in what or who I teach.
You and I seem to agree on this topic. My reason for the PM was that my response to Mcleod212 digressed from the OP's original inquiry about firearms certifications and went onto other topics about shoot to kill/shoot to wound. I dislike it when people get onto a thread about one topic, and begin to steer it onto something completely different, so I wanted to stay on topic in this thread.
My PM to Macleod was almost word for word what you put in your last paragraph in an earlier posting about the issue of shoot to wound, or shoot to kill. My reasons and background for that was the same as yours. But that gets me off the topic of lousy instructors, and onto a discussion about use of force, force continuum, appropriate levels of force and so on. I thought it inappropriate for me to go that direction in this thread as I wanted to stay on topic.
I also agree with everyone about not wanting someone telling me what I can, must, or cannot teach as an instructor. Then the issue could easily become who is worthy of knowing technique A, and B, and who isn't. I like free exchange of knowledge based on the instructor's evaluation of students.
Just as a martial arts instructor wouldn't teach a goofy kid with no impulse control how to break someone's neck easily, a firearms instructor needs a similar ability to evaluate what and who to teach.
I have seen plenty of lousy firearms and martial arts instructors. Sometimes it seems that their primary qualification is that they have the keys to the door of the dojo, or range. Lousy instructors have been around ever since people started teaching anything, and I would rather the prospective students do a proper job of evaluating an instructor's knowledge and ability to teach than I would want governmental oversight of what/who can teach, and/or what they can teach. There are plenty of people with a great amount of knowledge or skill, but some of them simply can't teach.
Finding an instructor with both knowledge and the ability to teach is a real treasure. There have been hack instructors for thousands of years, and there will be more of 'em long after I am gone. Even if we were able to eliminate the current crop of hack instructors, there would just be a new crop of hacks to take their place.
I would prefer caveat emptor to governmental oversight and/or interference in what or who I teach.
