CCW Class Complete . . . Feeling Not So Great About Things

[Limedust]

I completed a brief--and admittedly free--training class today to qualify for my Nevada CCFP. While the trainers were experienced and qualified, I find that the requirements for passing the class were very low . . . and that the quality of shooters in terms of theoretical and practical acumen were commensurate with the bar set by the course.

Did any of you feel a bit anxious about your peers after you got to see a bit more of them? I usually go to a very strict, very safe range at which any shenanigans are quickly put down, so maybe my perspective is skewed, but I'm surprised at how badly the gun-wielding sample I met today performed. I'm no master by any stretch; in fact, I'm barely proficient with a hand-gun. I know that I need training and practice, practice, practice; others, however, are much worse with their weapons and barely able to function in the theoretical portions of the test.

It seems more, not less, dangerous out there now, and I am almost as concerned with my fellow students as I am with anyone else. I'm definitely for erring on the side of constitutional rights versus any restrictions, no if, ands, or buts about it. That doesn't make it comfortable, though. Anyone have a similar experience? Maybe I was just naive before the class today. . .

 

[TNT]

If you want scary, consider the number of driver's license holders that routinely sling a 2000+ lb hunk of metal around at 60+ mph while talking on a cell phone and eating french fries. Yes, we should be more responsible with the things we use. The same irresponsibility, or at least lack of proficiency, you see that many have with firearms also applies to things they use more frequently, which are much more deadly. Yes, there is cause to worry, but there are more pressing matters in my opinion.

 

[The-Fly]

I teach ccw classes here in Colorado. Colorado does not mandate what the instructor has to teach. A lot of the instructors are doing a class room only 3 hour class session, and charging $50-75 a head. I do a 8 hour classroom and range session (4 hours class, 4 hours range), and charge $100. People are always asking why I charge more. Well, your experience is why I do it my way.

I refuse to cater to the bottom feeders who have no interest in improving their skills, and who will not have a snowballs chance in hell when the shit hits the rotating cooling device.

OP, moral of the story - you get what you pay for training wise.

 

[mysquishy1215]

i was trained by my father to handle weapons, his wisdom in regards to safety, operation and skill were the foundation throughout my life . you didnt get a failing grade for pointing a gun anywhere but downrange. his wrath was quick, but i know he did this to teach me life long lessons for my own safety, the safety of others, and the skills to protect myself and my family, ill always remember what he taught me!

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

The more classes you attend the better you can read the next instructor, prior to signing up.

 

[coach4christ]

Call me crazy, but I think a mandated class so that I can practice a constitutionally preserved right is a waste of time and energy. But to answer your question, I observed the same in my irrelevant ccw class.

 

[Maggot]

I must say, my first class was taken with FPF training at Quantico with John Murphy. 16 hours and some 700 rds later I felt very well schooled. The fellow students were all responsible...John would have kicked the ass of anyone who was careless. I feel that if we are to be responsible handlers that the instruction should be much more competent than just 3 hours and a couple dozen rds down range. I too, cringe at the # of morons wheeling a 2000 lb + chunk of iron down the freeway at 70 mph. Many should not be allowed to go to the bathroom without assistance.

 

[clyde]

OP -

Yup, though these feelings pose fascinating questions:

1) As proposed above, should there be qualifications to exercise natural born and constitutionally-protected rights?
2) If you perhaps answered that 2A is different from CCW, how would we establish "floor" for CCW skills?
3) Especially since most police officers I know wouldn't pass them?
4) 2x especially since, if we are honest with ourselves, legit CCW work should have significant combatives elements, which are much more physically and emotionally demanding to teach and learn?
5) And do we really want to do anything which makes it more difficult to enter "our" side of the political fight?

None of which, of course, refutes your assertion that there are a whole bunch of "us" out there who are downright scary, skills-wise-speaking...

Bill

 

[Centuriator]

Getting your CCW is your license...to take training classes to show you how actually to use it.

CCW classes are notoriously basic and "just enough" to get you qualified to be licensed to carry.

Take at least one professional defensive handgun shooting class after you get your CCW and you'll quickly realize how much more training you need.

 

[classicshooter]

If you want scary, consider the number of driver's license holders that routinely sling a 2000+ lb hunk of metal around at 60+ mph while talking on a cell phone and eating french fries. Yes, we should be more responsible with the things we use. The same irresponsibility, or at least lack of proficiency, you see that many have with firearms also applies to things they use more frequently, which are much more deadly. Yes, there is cause to worry, but there are more pressing matters in my opinion.

When I get into "civilized" conversations about gun with people I bring up the exact same point, and I even bring up drivers who choose to drink and then get behind the wheel.

 

[KYpatriot]

Its a right. Like free speech. Having a right doesn't make you good at it, practice does. As citizens its up to us to develop the skills to exercise those rights responsibly, but I will always oppose even the smallest government requirement to exercise any God-given natural right, because at that point it is no longer a right but a privilege granted by man. Privileges are subject to the whim of man, and every man has a little tyrant in them. Thats why in the Constitution there are NO pre-existing restraint on our rights. We NEVER have to pass a test to exercise our right to free speech. YES, we absolutely CAN yell fire in a crowded theater, but if we do that maliciously we have to answer for it, just like we have to answer for a negligent discharge that damages life or property.

Does that make us less safe? I don't know but more importantly don't care because the question is irrelevant if we understand the Constitution as written. The Constitution was not written to ensure my safety from myself, but only my safety from tyrannical government. THAT is the big picture, and its only purpose, for the founders well recognized where the true danger lies.

Unfortunately short sighted ignorant people seek to make every hazard in life a police matter, worthy of government intervention to protect them from themselves, and one day will rue the police state they created by substituting emotion for reason. Ironically, it will not be government, but the patriot remnant they so despised, that will truly save them from themselves.

 

[E. Bryant]

When I took my CPL class about ten or so years ago, roughly half of the dozen students had some exposure to firearms of some sort, and half had virtually no shooting experience of any sort. Combine that with the time limitations of the class (roughly eight hours of classroom instruction and two hours of range time), we certainly weren't going to get into the finer points of defensive pistolcraft.

As TNT points out, it's really not much difference than the situation with driver's ed, although far more people drive cars and it is, IMO (and based by statistics), far more difficult to safely operate a vehicle than it is to achieve some basic level of safety with a firearm. I can passively achieve safety with the firearm by simply not touching it; drivers try very hard to passively operate motor vehicles, but with tragic results.

Really, it all comes down to statistics. Very small numbers of the population have a CCW/CPL (here in Michigan, the percentage is somewhere in the low single digits). Very few of those people carry on a regular basis. Very few of them will ever be put in a situation where the weapon will be drawn, and virtually never will a shot actually be fired. Looking at Michigan's annual CPL report, one will see that most license violations/revocations have little or nothing to do with firearms, from which one can infer that there are very few cases where, say, a weapon is produced in a situation that does not justify that level of force.

I'm not at all trying to take a lackadaisical attitude towards safety and competency, but I also wouldn't want to blow this subject up to the point where we start calling for 50-100 hours of minimum training prior to issuing permits. Frankly, any widespread improvement in crime that may come from shall-issue CCW/CPL laws likely comes from the possibility that civilians may be armed, rather than any specific action by armed individuals.

 

[pmclaine]

In those mandated classes people fool themselves (this would be the people mandating them) if they think any graduate has any skill approaching proficiency.

The focus of the class should be in avoiding the fight, responsibility to further train and preparation for the mess life can become if you ever have to use your CCW.

Anyone that leaves one of those mandated classes with confidence is probably a hazard. Pat your self on the back for good sense.

 

[Apothus]

In my CC class, half the classroom time was spent advertising their more "serious" courses at 1500 dollars per person and then the rest of the time was rushing through material so fast that there was no chance to retain it. From there we spent 5 minutes on the range, fired 10 rounds each, and that was it. The minimum requirement was to be able to hit a Rosie O'Donnell size target at 15 feet, and I believe 2 out of 25 in my class failed.

I left feeling cheated and no more prepared for any kind of defecated cooling device situation.

 

[rjacobs]

I have taken 2 CCW courses, one in Texas and one in MO. The one in TX was more about how awesome the instructor was and all of his past exploits vs. teaching the stuff we needed to know. I was very dissapointed in the class. The gun handling I saw in the shooting portion was VERY poor and this guy was the only person on the line with us.

The CCW course I took in Missouri was vastly different. The instructor used stories of things he had encountered in his police work but they werent necessarily to share his exploits, but to emphasize points he was trying to make on various aspects of the law or situations or what not. When it came time to shoot he had 6 or 8 range officers out there with 16-20 of us(cant remember exactly how many) so I felt very safe. Although the quality of the shooter was fairly low and I saw some people literally took their gun out of the box for the first time, uncleaned, never fired, etc... BUT they had enough range masters on the line that it wasnt an issue.

 

[pmclaine]

My thought is that the whole permitting issue has less to do with ensuring responsible people get access to firearms but its a source of revenue without calling it a tax.

Mitt Romney revoked all issued until revoked FID cards and holders now have to pay fees to renew every couple of years. He upped the fees for CCW licenses also. So what cost $2 and lasted a lifetime now generates much more revenue. The fact most of the revoked cards were never renewed plays well also with the anti gun crowd as now they tout how many fewer licensed gun owners reside in MA, happy that they have criminalized an unknowing part of the population, probably most that are of the older generation.

Mandating classes just adds more "non tax" revenue as instructors need to be licensed and pay their fees so the vaccuuming of money out of the market into the general fund continues.

Oh well the snakes are just doing what snakes will do. Unfortunately the population lacks any mongoose DNA. If the anti gun crowd ever eliminates the 2A I wonder if they will lament the loss of fees, Pittman Act money, and sales tax receipts associated with the firearms. I bet they hope the Nerf industry can than be regulated in a similar fashion.

 

[shulette]

I don't believe the classes are meant to teach you how to use a gun. They are there to familiarize you with how to use a gun. The instructor at my class made it clear that if 1) you thought that the single class was enough training and/or 2) you were not going to practice regularly, then you should not be in the class.

I believe the greater point in the class was how quickly you could get yourself into legal trouble by not knowing when to keep the gun in its holster.

 

[eli polite]

Using examples of poor behavior to excuse excuse more poor behavior is stupid! In the case of diving it's not a 4-8 hour class it's weeks of classes and hands on expirence befor you take a test where you can actually fail. Becoming a father and having a family has cut my tolerance for stupidity down to an all time low. Guns while constatutinly are a rite! Are still just as much a privlage. You may have the constatutinl rite to own a gun but you NEVER! Have the rite to endanger others well being because of your own negligence. I have always believed that if your responsible and well trained you should have the rite to own what ever you want if you can afford it. The more effort you put in the more freedoms you should have. Instead of rewarding or punishing every one based on the efforts or negligence of the few. But comparing bad to bad in order to some how justify it is shamefull

When I get into "civilized" conversations about gun with people I bring up the exact same point, and I even bring up drivers who choose to drink and then get behind the wheel.

 

[EddieP]

Using examples of poor behavior to excuse excuse more poor behavior is stupid! In the case of diving it's not a 4-8 hour class it's weeks of classes and hands on expirence befor you take a test where you can actually fail. Becoming a father and having a family has cut my tolerance for stupidity down to an all time low. Guns while constatutinly are a rite! Are still just as much a privlage. You may have the constatutinl rite to own a gun but you NEVER! Have the rite to endanger others well being because of your own negligence. I have always believed that if your responsible and well trained you should have the rite to own what ever you want if you can afford it. The more effort you put in the more freedoms you should have. Instead of rewarding or punishing every one based on the efforts or negligence of the few. But comparing bad to bad in order to some how justify it is shamefull

But the D&D shows that people never blame cars or call for more restrictions. The blame the driver.

 

[346ci]

I don't believe the classes are meant to teach you how to use a gun. They are there to familiarize you with how to use a gun. The instructor at my class made it clear that if 1) you thought that the single class was enough training and/or 2) you were not going to practice regularly, then you should not be in the class.

I believe the greater point in the class was how quickly you could get yourself into legal trouble by not knowing when to keep the gun in its holster.

That is how the $75-$100 courses should be taught, with more info after the course as to how to become a better shooter with training.

My CCW class years ago was 6 hrs of class and 1-2 hour range time. If you could put your rounds into the center somewhat, you were GTG. If not, you stayed and got some more one on one to help get the basics down, like aiming and adjusting your aim vs. POI. However, there were some people there who I don't think needed a firearm in their hand.

My GF is about ready to take the CCW, if possible, I will use the same instructor I took it with since I know he is good. I already have and will spend some more range time with her to make sure she is a decent shooter.

 

[eli polite]

Never said it did. Never even implied it. It's the same thing as your kid spitting on your other kid and than saying well jimmy punces his sister and nothing happens to him. What do you say to your kid? You say what the fuck does that have to do with what you did and than you administr the proper punishment. We dig our selves deeper and deeper by not demanding responsible behavior and acting like adults not 5 year olds.

Are you saying that if your walking through the mall parking lot with your family. And a few rows over some one try's to rob Rambo wanna be. So he pulls out his HiPoint and just starts wildly shooting and sends stray bullets all over the parking lot. And one of those bullets hits you or one of your family member. Do you think it is ok for his atourny to use the argument. Well look at all the unsafe drivers out there they can do it. So my client should be able to be unsafe to. This is not a 2A thing this is a responsibility thing. While I believe that you should be able to own whatever you want including class 3 I believe that there is a fine line between your rite to bear arms and you infringing on the rites of others to actually stay alive because you choose to stay ignorant and irisponsable. By saying "YOU" I am referring to the masses of irisponsable gun owners that continually infring on MY rite to bear arms because your lazy and stupid. Fortunately a don't see a lot of those on this site

 

[Centuriator]

And here we go......

 

[TNT]

Never said it did. Never even implied it. It's the same thing as your kid spitting on your other kid and than saying well jimmy punces his sister and nothing happens to him. What do you say to your kid? You say what the fuck does that have to do with what you did and than you administr the proper punishment. We dig our selves deeper and deeper by not demanding responsible behavior and acting like adults not 5 year olds.

Are you saying that if your walking through the mall parking lot with your family. And a few rows over some one try's to rob Rambo wanna be. So he pulls out his HiPoint and just starts wildly shooting and sends stray bullets all over the parking lot. And one of those bullets hits you or one of your family member. Do you think it is ok for his atourny to use the argument. Well look at all the unsafe drivers out there they can do it. So my client should be able to be unsafe to. This is not a 2A thing this is a responsibility thing. While I believe that you should be able to own whatever you want including class 3 I believe that there is a fine line between your rite to bear arms and you infringing on the rites of others to actually stay alive because you choose to stay ignorant and irisponsable. By saying "YOU" I am referring to the masses of irisponsable gun owners that continually infring on MY rite to bear arms because your lazy and stupid. Fortunately a don't see a lot of those on this site

No it's not ok, but my point was that we each have a limited amount of time and resources. I can't do much about someone else's sense of responsibility and regard for the common man. Any efforts expended trying to develop that will likely be wasted. I posted this in the liberty quotations thread - from Heinlein: "“Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination-- devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues -- which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out.”

I'm not going to waste my energy trying to solve a problem that won't get solved. If I stop these people from being irresponsible with guns, they will still be irresponsible with cars and dishwashing soap. Is irresponsible gun ownership a concern? Sure, but my energy is better spent managing my own personal risk, and my strategy for that is avoidance. Were I to really try and solve the problem, I'd go after cars first because they're much more likely to kill me.

 

[Maggot]

Using examples of poor behavior to excuse excuse more poor behavior is stupid! In the case of diving it's not a 4-8 hour class it's weeks of classes and hands on expirence befor you take a test where you can actually fail. Becoming a father and having a family has cut my tolerance for stupidity down to an all time low. Guns while constatutinly are a rite! Are still just as much a privlage. You may have the constatutinl rite to own a gun but you NEVER! Have the rite to endanger others well being because of your own negligence. I have always believed that if your responsible and well trained you should have the rite to own what ever you want if you can afford it. The more effort you put in the more freedoms you should have. Instead of rewarding or punishing every one based on the efforts or negligence of the few. But comparing bad to bad in order to some how justify it is shamefull

Never said it did. Never even implied it. It's the same thing as your kid spitting on your other kid and than saying well jimmy punces his sister and nothing happens to him. What do you say to your kid? You say what the fuck does that have to do with what you did and than you administr the proper punishment. We dig our selves deeper and deeper by not demanding responsible behavior and acting like adults not 5 year olds.

Are you saying that if your walking through the mall parking lot with your family. And a few rows over some one try's to rob Rambo wanna be. So he pulls out his HiPoint and just starts wildly shooting and sends stray bullets all over the parking lot. And one of those bullets hits you or one of your family member. Do you think it is ok for his atourny to use the argument. Well look at all the unsafe drivers out there they can do it. So my client should be able to be unsafe to. This is not a 2A thing this is a responsibility thing. While I believe that you should be able to own whatever you want including class 3 I believe that there is a fine line between your rite to bear arms and you infringing on the rites of others to actually stay alive because you choose to stay ignorant and irisponsable. By saying "YOU" I am referring to the masses of irisponsable gun owners that continually infring on MY rite to bear arms because your lazy and stupid. Fortunately a don't see a lot of those on this site

Eli, I agree with your thoughts here but would like to add that while not a true responsibility, you do have the constitutional right to use spell check. Sad wif tong n cheke

 

[eli polite]

Sorry I'm at the dreaded In laws house hiding in a corner doing the best I can with my big fingers on this tiny IPhone. I'll do better with proof reading. Big fingers hitting wrong letters and auto correct can cause a problem

 

[classicshooter]

Using examples of poor behavior to excuse excuse more poor behavior is stupid! In the case of diving it's not a 4-8 hour class it's weeks of classes and hands on expirence befor you take a test where you can actually fail. Becoming a father and having a family has cut my tolerance for stupidity down to an all time low. Guns while constatutinly are a rite! Are still just as much a privlage. You may have the constatutinl rite to own a gun but you NEVER! Have the rite to endanger others well being because of your own negligence. I have always believed that if your responsible and well trained you should have the rite to own what ever you want if you can afford it. The more effort you put in the more freedoms you should have. Instead of rewarding or punishing every one based on the efforts or negligence of the few. But comparing bad to bad in order to some how justify it is shamefull

Not really sure why I was quoted/replied to, but just to clarify, I only bring up drivers/ those who drink and drive as a larger problem then guns by themselves. My point may not have been properly expressed since I too am trying to do this on a small iDevice rather than my regular laptop.

 

[Veer_G]

Sorry I'm at the dreaded In laws house hiding in a corner ...

Your first mistake: you went there!

 

[eli polite]

You have no idea how bad it is. Well was! I'm home now and in recovery. I only go up there twice a year and my brother in law falls under the above topic. He's a fat lazy security guard at a college in P.A. and it is almost phisicaly painful to be around this guy. I can't even begin to tell you. He's about 70 lbs over weight, diagnosed bi poler by a Dr. And on med's, has the mental capacity of a 10 year old, and packs heat. He is by law able to do so but it does not mean that he is actually capable of doing so. Withh out being a danger to him self or others. So this topick is of interest to me.

 

[Unknown]

Some states (Oregon comes to mind) only require that you show you have completed a firearms safety class. There is absoutely no gun handling proficiency, qualification, range time, or even a requirement that you know how to safely operate the firearm you want to carry. Sure, there would be all sorts of questions for the state to iron out if they DID decide to require such things, but if they figured out those things for police, security guards, prison guards, and other people, it shouldn't be all that difficult to figure it out for civilians.

If I were king, I would require the students show competent gun handling with (at the very least) the firearm they intend to carry, and would require knowledge of the state's laws, and some rudimentary understanding of civil liability, the force continuum, use of force laws, wrongful death, and other legal matters relating to carrying a firearm and use of deadly force.

But what do I know..I see people driving every day that shouldn't be driving. I see people buying alcoholic beverages that shouldn't be buying them, people smoking that are under 18 and on and on. Y'all are damned lucky I'm not king.

 

[Maggot]

Some states (Oregon comes to mind) only require that you show you have completed a firearms safety class. There is absoutely no gun handling proficiency, qualification, range time, or even a requirement that you know how to safely operate the firearm you want to carry. Sure, there would be all sorts of questions for the state to iron out if they DID decide to require such things, but if they figured out those things for police, security guards, prison guards, and other people, it shouldn't be all that difficult to figure it out for civilians.

If I were king, I would require the students show competent gun handling with (at the very least) the firearm they intend to carry, and would require knowledge of the state's laws, and some rudimentary understanding of civil liability, the force continuum, use of force laws, wrongful death, and other legal matters relating to carrying a firearm and use of deadly force.

But what do I know..I see people driving every day that shouldn't be driving. I see people buying alcoholic beverages that shouldn't be buying them, people smoking that are under 18 and on and on. Y'all are damned lucky I'm not king.

King Unknown. Kinda has a ring to it.....Or, the Unknown King

 

[truth]

Never underestimate the stupidity and ineptitude of your fellow Americans.

 

[KYpatriot]

Some states (Oregon comes to mind) only require that you show you have completed a firearms safety class. There is absoutely no gun handling proficiency, qualification, range time, or even a requirement that you know how to safely operate the firearm you want to carry. Sure, there would be all sorts of questions for the state to iron out if they DID decide to require such things, but if they figured out those things for police, security guards, prison guards, and other people, it shouldn't be all that difficult to figure it out for civilians.

If I were king, I would require the students show competent gun handling with (at the very least) the firearm they intend to carry, and would require knowledge of the state's laws, and some rudimentary understanding of civil liability, the force continuum, use of force laws, wrongful death, and other legal matters relating to carrying a firearm and use of deadly force.

But what do I know..I see people driving every day that shouldn't be driving. I see people buying alcoholic beverages that shouldn't be buying them, people smoking that are under 18 and on and on. Y'all are damned lucky I'm not king.

No, not lucky, it wasn't an accident. We are damn fortunate we had ancestors with principles and courage. Like I said, there are little tyrants everywhere who would subjugate their fellow man to their every whim. True then, true now. The statists ALWAYS have a list of requirements, for our own good of course. And to make us safer. And for the children, don't forget the children.

 

[Ultraman550]

Limedust, where did you take it? I got mine about 3 years ago from a guy who was working with a certain gun shop here on the SE side. We met on a Saturday at Denny's and we talked about firearms for two hours. Then we went to Desert Shooting Club and that's where the real testing began. He forgot to bring his targets so he had us fire 5...FIVE!! rounds into the berm, check left and right, yell clear and that was it.......I shit you not.

 

[Unknown]

My guess is that around 80% of the people on this board already have a good grasp of all the things I was referring to in "king" posting. Obviously I have no intention of being king, nor would I actually subjugate everyone to my points of view. My statement was a sarcastic jab at those who actually would use any power they have to impose their will on others. Obviously, the sarcasm didn't come through clearly enough. I realize that my points of view are just that...my points of view. I just wish there were fewer idiots carrying guns around. The vast majority of people who carry guns do so without incident. The real problem is that the anti-gunners seize any issue the idiots cause, and seek to use that to punish the 99% who have no issues.

If the logic that the 99% of people should be punished for the misdeads of the 1% were applied to other things we would:
1. Not allow private ownership of automobiles.
2. No alcoholic beverages would be allowed.
3. Most sports would be illegal because of the potential for injury.
4. Electrical objects would not be allowed due to the possibility of shock.
5. The internet would not be allowed because of it's use to send kiddie porn.

And there are a great many other things that could be added to the above short list. However, by selectively applying logic, the anti-gunners use that logic and only apply it to laws that relate to firearms. But I'm preaching to the choir.

Q: What is the primary difference between genius and stupidity?
A: Genius has it's limits.

 

[truth]

Limedust, where did you take it? I got mine about 3 years ago from a guy who was working with a certain gun shop here on the SE side. We met on a Saturday at Denny's and we talked about firearms for two hours. Then we went to Desert Shooting Club and that's where the real testing began. He forgot to bring his targets so he had us fire 5...FIVE!! rounds into the berm, check left and right, yell clear and that was it.......I shit you not.

How many times were you able to hit it?

 

[Ultraman550]

How many times were you able to hit it?

LOL. I couldn't believe that was the test. I've heard other stories of how people never even went to the gun club. They just bullshitted about the laws, when to shoot, when not to shoot all over a grand slam with an extra side of bacon and they passed.

 

[truth]

There's no mandatory shooting component here in Utah. If you pass the written test and background check, you're allowed to carry. That's what "shall issue" is supposed to be. Self-defense is a right everyone has regardless of training or skill level. Freedom isn't free, it comes with it's own set of problems and inherent risks.

 

[Maggot]

Q: What is the primary difference between genius and stupidity?
A: Genius has it's limits.

Not true, stupidity does have its limits. Its called "Death".

 

[Unknown]

Maggot,
I hadn't thought of that...I suppose that would be correct though. Sort of a self limiting process.

 

[eli polite]

speaking of stupid

Judge Judy - Dumb and dumber - YouTube