I looked at their website and this course addresses many of the concerns I have about carry training. $150 is also a low enough price that it's reasonable to expect casual shooters to sign up.
I looked at their website and this course addresses many of the concerns I have about carry training. $150 is also a low enough price that it's reasonable to expect casual shooters to sign up.
Continual practice. My limits now are higher in some ways than 3 years ago, lower in others. I don't shoot as much now (no reloading setup currently), but I've learned other things to practice beyond just pointing at a target.
I'm all for repercussions to practicing your right rather than limiting the "right" into a privilege in the first place. Like speech, you are "free" to yell "bomb" or "fire" in a crowded theater, but there can be (and are in that case) consequences to such action. You should be free to bear arms however, whenever, and wherever you please, (2A here), but if you harm others due to negligence on your part, then there should be consequences.
As for training... well, like many things currently... if there were more consequences for being stupid / untrained and harming others, then there would be more incentive to train. But I absolutely DO NOT WANT to have .gov mandated training by "certified" professionals.
I'm all for repercussions to practicing your right rather than limiting the "right" into a privilege in the first place. Like speech, you are "free" to yell "bomb" or "fire" in a crowded theater, but there can be (and are in that case) consequences to such action. You should be free to bear arms however, whenever, and wherever you please, (2A here), but if you harm others due to negligence on your part, then there should be consequences.
As for training... well, like many things currently... if there were more consequences for being stupid / untrained and harming others, then there would be more incentive to train. But I absolutely DO NOT WANT to have .gov mandated training by "certified" professionals.
I completely agree with you. I think extensive training should be a must. But then we get into the issue of who gets to decide how much training is required. And the only way that you could mandate the increased training is with government laws because no amount of self policing is ever going to accomplish anything on a large scale. So now you get into the issue of the government imposing harsher training for the CCW license and that brings up another can of worms. So I agree that more extensive training should be required but I don't know how to do it. Because the only way to actually get it done is for it to be government imposed and that will just piss alot of people off.
I certainly don't want any more government laws, but I think to just mail in a copy of course completion to OSBI would be sufficiant. After that, if you don't hit the range another day in your life, it's your loss. At least you are trained better than the original CCW class.
Yea, these guys are real professional. Make sure you read the testimonials too.
Baseline will vary for individuals. The guy who delivers pizza in a rough area of town is different from the pensioner who wants to get their SSA check out of the mailbox without getting mugged. For the most part, you have to get fairly close to a criminal for them to cause you harm. They either want to mug you, rape you, or otherwise injure you. Most citizens not involved in questionable activities are robbed or injured at contact distances, so the ranges can be fairly short. FAM's don't qualify at 25 yards because their operational envelope is much smaller.
Where you run into trouble is when you elect to use a firearm in a situation where it's use might not be the best method of dealing with the threat. While I have drawn a gun is self-defense before, other actions I took simultaneously were better at mitigating the risk than shooting.
I think like Mike Brown has stated, for many SDA applicants the gun is a talisman. A course in how to recognize pre-attack indicators, how to recognize danger zones, situational awareness, OODA Loop, and methods used by violent criminals to prey on victims would probably be more advantageous than a shooting course.
It would be nice if SDA instructors could recognize the attendees that have no business with a gun and target them for additional training. Perhaps provide a list of instructors who provide additional training that has been approved by the state for enhancing SDA permit holder skill levels?
Great discussion. When I decided to carry and take the SDA class I had never had any formal firearm training. Only basic safety and a lot of shooting when I was a kid living in the country. After obtaining my CCL I felt a responsibility to be trained and sought good training. While expensive (for me at least) I thought it was some of the best money I had ever spent and I would love to more.
I think Poop's Pistolseed is a great idea that would benefit many. But, the question may not be how many would take advantage of the firearms and self defense training but who will volunteer their time and expertise to make it work. Hasn't Appleseed's success been due in large part to a lot of dedicated volunteers. $400 + ammo per person for a weekend may be a bargain for the quality of the training and the lives it may save but it just isn't realistic for a lot of people.
While I wholehearedly agree that everyone who carries has a responsibility to be properly trained, getting that training has to be a personal decision not a mandated one.
We have great resources right here in Oklahoma for training. USSA, TDSA and occasional classes held at OKCGC by Givens, Seeklander and others. There are others but those three are the great ones, probably the best in the country if truth be told.
The class fee and ammo are about the same as a quality carry weapon. I just don't see how it is cost prohibitive. I know it is for some, but the vast majority packing a nice Glock, M&P, or XD in an IWB holster have no excuse and have had no training beyond the SDA class.
The class fee and ammo are about the same as a quality carry weapon. I just don't see how it is cost prohibitive. I know it is for some, but the vast majority packing a nice Glock, M&P, or XD in an IWB holster have no excuse and have had no training beyond the SDA class.
Second question: what should a person have to do in order to retain their driver's license? I think they should attend a safe driving course at least twice a year and then demonstrate their proficiency at avoiding a head-on collision with a semi. No one should be given a license unless they meet a certain standard of accident avoidance and safe signaling skills.
More people die by auto each year than by gun play. Why don't we have this discussion about autos?
After all, keeping and bearing a gun is a right, driving a car is not.
I really don't understand some of the discussions on this forum. I thought we understood the 2A and what it means. Hmm.
More people die by auto each year than by gun play. Why don't we have this discussion about autos?
After all, keeping and bearing a gun is a right, driving a car is not.
I really don't understand some of the discussions on this forum. I thought we understood the 2A and what it means. Hmm.
I don't see this thread as a debate about 2A. I think most on here agree with your position. It is a good discussion about how those who do carry can do it with a sense of responsibility. I think the OPs questions would be just as valid if there were no license requirement.
Reread the original post. I specifically state that putting a skill requirement on practicing a fundamental write is wrong.
The question isn't what you're required to do. The question is what should you do in order to be a responsible armed citizen.
Similar threads
