|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Stress shooting: Training for ‘time is life’ scenarios
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Unfortunately, many people who carry concealed are incapable of operating under battle stress. Those of us who are current or prior military or law enforcement receive some training in how to keep our cool and focus in a time-is-life situation. In comparison, I have been to two CCL courses (one in Texas and one in Arizona) and the shooting portions of both were very simple, very calm, static shoots. Seeing how many people missed under relaxed conditions has highlighted how ill-prepared the average CCL applicant is. In the absence of regulation-mandated stress shoots, it is incumbent upon us to train harder for the worst case scenario. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/25/2016)
|
| True, if a shooter appeared I'd be attempted to just run off, especially if the perp had a pistol. Few shooters can hit their targets, even more so under stress. After knocking down steel targets at 40yds, I carried with some confidence, until recently I encountered 25yd targets at our local monthly IDPA match and couldn't hit! My glasses no longer allowed me to focus on my sights. Anyone who isn't training/shooting regularly and carrying, is walking around with a false belief they can utilize their defensive weapon effectively. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
