You really think that guy is in the top 1%?Originally Posted by dgg9
You really think that guy is in the top 1%?
Sure, when you consider the skill levels and practice habits of the vast majority of CCWers. Most are indifferent visitors to the square range, and a lot(most?) indoor ranges don't even allow draw and fire. I believe that the people in this forum represent much less than 1% of CCWers.
His negligent gun handling skills tell me he's likely not in the top 1%. How much warm up did he do? How many takes? His hits were good, but with a highly noticeable hard pause once he gets on target, I believe there's a lot people out there that could get the same hits in that time frame.
1slow was not referencing "CQC," which indeed many people teach. 1slow was making a very clear and deliberate reference to a specific course for very deliberate reasons. For you to reply to a specific question in such an open way either means that you miss the point or that you choose to avoid the point. There's just no possible way to make C3 anywhere near as fast or functional as C1 when you're using your off-arm to hold a solid cross-side arm drag or sink a deep underhook.
You can choose to say that you are not concerned with the likelihood of having to use your off-arm for anything but gun manipulation during a lethal force encounter, but that's a far cry from saying that you've "been there and done that" when ECQC is referenced. It's intellectually dishonest, and why I am saying that you are not engaging in a true discussion. You are very selectively engaging the points of others or carefully avoiding certain parts of their questions.
By the way, I fixed the image links (didn't realize they weren't hotlinking properly). They come from an actual ECQC class.
So that people don't have to scroll back to find them, here they are again:
Again, you have every right to say that coursework doesn't interest you, or you don't believe it to be realistic for you, or that it's just plain silly. But it's being referenced for very specific reasons and you absolutely have not been there and done that.
I don't think you have nefarious motives: I just think you debate in intellectually dishonest ways. Nothing nefarious about it.
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
I guess it depends on what slice of people you see and know of, across the decades. There are (I've read) something like 8M CCWers. Just in terms of draw and accuracy, are there many more than 80k shooters that are measurably better?
But let's not quibble with 1%. Would 2% or 3% or 5% be a number you'd agree with? The vast majority of CCW holders have never taken a serious weekend class and don't compete.
I found no need to waste time, money, and ammo on a class. Based on my needs and desires, which aren't too far fetched, I have ruled it out. One hand draw sucks, potential compromised position draw sucks, seated draw sucks, and frankly since I don't have a crystal ball I choose to not give up any time. That said... The potential scenarios where I may need a pistol and not have both hands are enough to rule it out.
Your experiences outlined do not really support C3 carry either.
Perhaps I need to move into a neighborhood where you and DGG9 live, seems like there is less crime.
With regards to viable... Drinking piss is a viable option for hydration. There may be better things to do. I'd hope we could at least agree on that much.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to agree to disagree on the level of this guy's bad assness.
And we're done, again.
