Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns


PDA






funnybone
May 1, 2008, 12:31 AM
:banghead:

OrlandoSentinel.com
Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns
Henry Pierson Curtis

Sentinel Staff Writer

April 30, 2008

Some of the 500,000 people holding concealed-weapons permits in Florida qualified by using toy guns.

Recent complaints to state officials pointed out that almost anyone who wants to carry a handgun to the movies, mall or church can do so. The shortcomings they cited include training that allows firing bullets without gunpowder, and passing students for merely pulling the trigger once or twice without ever loading or unloading a handgun.

Quickie permit classes had become so common, the National Rifle Association threatened this month to fire any NRA-certified instructor who didn't use real guns to teach students in Florida.

Though carrying a concealed weapon requires a state permit, gun owners need only take a gun-safety course and show they know how to safely fire a real bullet. That's not the case in at least eight states -- where applicants must be able to hit a bulls-eye repeatedly.

"Unlike Texas, we do not have to have so many rounds at 10 feet or so many rounds at 15 feet. Florida just doesn't have that," said Buddy Bevis, director of licensing for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The concealed-weapon statute "just says you have to be able to fire and handle a firearm safely," he said. "It doesn't say if it takes one [shot] or 100."

Shoddy training became an issue this month, more than a year after a retired military officer first complained to Gov. Charlie Crist about classes at gun shows.

"You can only train a corpse in 3 hours," Col. James K. Otto Sr., an NRA instructor from North Florida, wrote to the governor. "Our NRA certified instructors take 3 days to a week to make sure their students not only know the law but also know how to handle firearms and ammunition safely with at least a half day firing at a local range."

The letter started a sputtering chain reaction after landing on Bevis' desk with the added detail that some students at these classes trained with toy guns. Bevis called the voice of the NRA in Florida to complain.

"I did call Marion Hammer and say, 'I don't know what you've got going on down there, but you better tighten it up,' " Bevis said in a telephone interview. "And that's it."

Hammer, a former NRA president and one of the state's most powerful lobbyists, alerted NRA national headquarters. Within days, every NRA-certified instructor in Florida was warned they would lose their credentials for not using real guns with real bullets in class.

"Specifically, Air Soft or other air-driven guns are not acceptable," stated the April 14 memo. "Florida law requires that you maintain records certifying that you 'observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm.' "

Air Soft guns are plastic replicas of firearms, which cost as little as $5 to more than $300. Many are sold as toys equipped with orange muzzles to distinguish them from real guns.

Hammer said the NRA issued the warning to make sure every class it certifies complies with state law. She finds nothing wrong with not requiring concealed-weapon permit holders to demonstrate a minimum level of shooting ability.

"In the 21 years that this program has been in effect, I know of no incident or accident that occurred as a result of lack of training," Hammer said by phone from Tallahassee.

The law "was never intended to make target shooters out of people. It was never intended to make street cops out of them," she said. "This is merely to show that individuals know how to load, unload and safely use a firearm for lawful self-defense."

Florida permit holders can carry their concealed weapons in 32 other states. Fifteen other states do not grant such reciprocity. One of them, South Carolina, cites Florida's low standards as the reason.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence advocates rigorous testing of shooting ability, knowledge of state laws and giving law enforcement discretion over who should be allowed to carry a hidden handgun.

"In Florida, where you're permitting them to legally carry a loaded, hidden handgun in a crowded situation where people may be running all over the place and then you're expecting them with no training to hit their mark -- that's crazy," said Brian Malte, the group's director of state legislation and politics. "Law-enforcement officers . . . miss their mark 80 percent of the time even after all the training they get."

Tighter restrictions on toy guns still don't mean all applicants must show they know how to shoot a pistol.

Concealed-weapon permits are available to graduates of classes taught by state-certified instructors and hunter-safety courses as well as NRA-certified classes. Graduates of the state's 12-hour hunter-safety course fire a .22-caliber rifle, a 20-gauge shotgun and a bow and arrow, but not a pistol, according to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Many Central Florida gun-shop owners are critical of quickie permit classes.

"If somebody was to cold call and say, 'Hey, I've never fired a gun before and I want to take your concealed-weapon class,' we will not allow them to sign up for the class," said John Ritz, manager of East Orange Shooting Sports in Winter Park. "It's not an introduction-to-shooting class. It's not a brand-new, basic beginner's class. We have those classes, and we do those classes several times a week."

Ritz estimated that about 1 percent of permit holders actually carry their guns daily. Those tend to be shooting enthusiasts, who fire at least 50 bullets in practice each month. Perhaps 25 percent of his students occasionally go armed and the rest almost never do, he said.

Soon, gun owners in Florida will be allowed to take their weapons to work.. Floridians already had the right to keep a loaded handgun in their vehicles. The new law, which takes effect July 1, lets gun owners park on company property and leave a handgun locked in the trunk.

Few safe places remain in Central Florida's urban sprawl for shooters to practice.

Orange County -- home to more than 23,000 concealed-weapon permit holders and 70 gun dealers -- has five public shooting ranges and one private gun club, records show.

Shoot Straight in Apopka, one of Florida's busiest gun stores, allows inexperienced shooters to take its permit classes. But store manager Larry Anderson said instructors stress that anyone carrying a firearm in public should be so skilled that its use is second nature.

"People need to practice more, there's no doubt about that," he said. "You need to be so proficient with that gun, you're comfortable."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-concealed3008apr30,0,2256061.story

If you enjoyed reading about "Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sig228
May 1, 2008, 01:10 AM
While I might not have fired that many rounds during my CHP qualification, you can better believe that I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds since. Practice makes PERFECT.:)

Winchester 73
May 1, 2008, 01:19 AM
Its so silly.Vermont,Alaska,Georgia,many states see no need for any guns,any training.
This is the Orlando Sentinel.

Geronimo45
May 1, 2008, 01:24 AM
"You can only train a corpse in 3 hours,"
I don't get this. What does it mean, and why does the NRA want to train corpses? :scrutiny:

k_dawg
May 1, 2008, 01:32 AM
The easier the permit is to obtain, the closer it is to the Constitution.

[ of course, no permits required would be the best ]

ColinthePilot
May 1, 2008, 01:44 AM
Practice makes PERFECT.
WRONG!
Without proper training, PRACTICE makes PERMANENT. If someone continuously practices bad techniques, they will become a PERMANENT bad shooter.

I got my CCW in FL about 2 years ago with a 3 hour class at a gun show, $170 (total for class and license fees) and a SINGLE ROUND fired downrange. All the instructor wanted was to see we could pick up a firearm (it was a .357mag loaded with .38 Special) with good trigger and muzzle discipline, fire one round and remove the finger from the trigger, and set the gun down on the bench. I didn't even look at the target, because I knew the requirement. I am one of those that practices regularly, I know the laws. but many don't.

Elza
May 1, 2008, 03:39 AM
Let the flames begin! Anyone carrying a gun in public should be required to be proficient in its use. Save me the 2nd Amendments arguments this is a matter of public safety. My safety, my family’s safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall.

I firmly believe that I, or any other law abiding citizen, should be allowed to own what ever we wish. Carrying (and possibly using) a gun in public is a different matter. What you have at home is (or should be) no bodies business but your own. What you do on the street impacts my safety and is therefore my business as well.

I have a CHL and carry every place that it is allowed. Texas has some of the most stringent requirements in the country for concealed carry and I still get the shivers when I think back to my CHL class. Everyone passed but I’m more afraid of some of them than I would be some ‘banger on the street. One of the students scored 173 out of 250 on the range and this was because the instructor was being generous. The minimum is 170. I stood there and watched her miss the target at 7 yards! I hope to God that I’m behind her if she ever pulls her weapon.

The 2nd Amendment is the single greatest protection we have as citizens and I will protect it with every means available to me. But, like all rights, there are limits. Any right that impacts the rights of others has limits. The safety of my family is at the top of the list.

evan price
May 1, 2008, 05:58 AM
We used "toy" guns in my CCW class.
We had a couple BlueGuns for demonstration purposes and etc.

Of course the practical portion was done with our own firearms and iirc I shot 'bout 100 rounds that day (not including the mag from the full auto M16 the instructor let us use)

Dksimon
May 1, 2008, 06:00 AM
In the lovely state of South Dakota you dont even have to take a class. You fill out some paperwork and pay 10 bucks and your'e good to go. (once youre paperwork has been processed)

camacho
May 1, 2008, 08:12 AM
The gun show classes are one BIG joke. I took one and was utterly disappointed. The guy gave us wrong information (found out later) about carrying in a car, and pretty much spend most of the time going over the application. Shortly after, I took a basic NRA pistol course and what a difference. Personally, I am glad that Marion and the NRA are trying to remedy the issue of the plastic guns.

Since there is a class required already might as well make it a good one where you can actually learn something. Most of us here are well past the stage of those classes but for a newbie it could make a difference!

USMC 1975
May 1, 2008, 08:20 AM
Anyone carrying a gun in public should be required to be proficient in its use. Save me the 2nd Amendments arguments this is a matter of public safety. My safety, my familyís safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall.


I have to agree with this statement. I have worked hard at surviving my last 50 years and would hate to see my life end over some idiot with a CCW who knows nothing about firearm safety or how to shoot a REAL gun.

I believe there has to be a happy medium somewhere to easily allow people to obtain CCW's yet mandate good training for them. Proper gun training should always be a requirement that is used to not so much prevent someone from getting a CCW but to protect the public, themselves and their families from an accident.

I have a neighbor who took a FL gun class to obtain his CCW. He went right out and bought a 45 and a 9 mm. The first thing he does is hand the 45 to me loaded with the barrel pointed at me. He never removed the clip nor racked the round out of the chamber. I wanted to shove that 45 right up his A^& at that very moment. These are the people who will ruin it for all of us if they accidentally discharge and kill someone in public.

Proper training is a must with a firearm that will be carried into public.

Chris

JohnBT
May 1, 2008, 08:50 AM
"Law-enforcement officers . . . miss their mark 80 percent of the time even after all the training they get."

Scientific proof that training is almost worthless?

""Unlike Texas, we do not have to have so many rounds at 10 feet or so many rounds at 15 feet. Florida just doesn't have that," said Buddy Bevis, director of licensing for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services."

10 or 15 FEET?

"Proper training is a must with a firearm that will be carried into public."

I know, let's make them qualify at 50 yards so they'll be really good. It will be so difficult to get a carry permit that a large number of folks will carry without a permit. Lord knows there are enough of them out there already with guns and no permit. Let's add more.

In conclusion, I don't think getting a carry permit should be more difficult than getting a driver's license. Do they even make them parallel park anymore? I also think they should have to demostrate the ability to drive a stick shift, but I'm old fashioned.

John

ufstuddmuffin
May 1, 2008, 10:17 AM
WRONG!
Without proper training, PRACTICE makes PERMANENT. If someone continuously practices bad techniques, they will become a PERMANENT bad shooter.


maybe for you if you need everything you learn spoon fed to you, but for those of us who know how to teach OURSELVES whatever it may be, practice sure as hell does make you MORE perfect then before. it's called re-adjusting after you make a mistake. it's not like there aren't a million diagrams on the web telling you how to correct your shooting depending on where you're hitting the target, but then again i guess you wouldn't know what to fix unless i stood over your shoulder and told you

.cheese.
May 1, 2008, 10:48 AM
seems like everybody is picking up this story now.

Robert Hairless
May 1, 2008, 10:59 AM
The first thing he does is hand the 45 to me loaded with the barrel pointed at me. He never removed the clip nor racked the round out of the chamber.

Chris, all of the .45 ACP semi-automatic pistols I've ever seen use magazines, not clips. Do you happen to remember which clip fed .45 your incompetent friend had?

I wonder sometimes what's behind these threads in which people clamor to have stricter training requirements for new shooters. They seem to elicit confessions of poor training and proclamations of superior knowledge, but I've never yet seen anyone say "I have refused a concealed carry permit because I don't know what I'm doing." It's always the other guy who shouldn't be carrying a concealed firearm.

What I do see often in other threads is people asking for help on one point or another and trying to learn. That's good. I've seen many people do that offline too. And that's good too. I don't know of any training class that covers all possibilities or wires every student into all that it covers.

Most people seem to figure out on their own that guns are dangerous, and the rules for safe gun handling are published all over the place, so I wonder how much good it would do to require training for someone who doesn't know or doesn't care that there's a need to handle guns safely and that there are simple principles for doing so. When I've encountered a few people whose brains didn't seem to connect with the rest of their body, instead of getting angry at them I showed them what to do.

I grew up during and after World War II when there was no firearms training for civilians interested in having handguns for self-defense. The American Pistol Institute (which became Gunsite) was the first and it wasn't founded until 1976, which was just about one generation ago. It never seemed to occur to anyone I knew to say that anyone needed training before being allowed to use a handgun in defense of his life or that of his family. And I don't recall a rash of incompetent shootings by such people in all of recorded time since before this generation.

So I wonder, as always, whether there might be something wrong with the people of this generation that makes them so tentative and helpless when confronted by essentially minor problems that never troubled the generations that preceded them.

USMC 1975
May 1, 2008, 12:25 PM
Chris, all of the .45 ACP semi-automatic pistols I've ever seen use magazines, not clips. Do you happen to remember which clip fed .45 your incompetent friend had?


Opps..my bad. It was a full " MAG " and a round in the chamber that he pointed at me.

Clip, Magazine, it still doesn't make the issue of handing a loaded gun to someone barrel first with it pointed at their stomach OK.

He was non military, had little experience with firearms and his only training came from his CCW class. It seems they would have at least taught him the proper way to handle a firearm and how to safely hand off a weapon to a second person.

The majority of us on this site have a lot of experience with different firearms so we sometimes forget, there are those who will purchase a firearm and take a CCW class and never have handled a gun before in their life until that point in time. These are the people who will benefit from a good class using REAL firearms.

I simply feel that these classes for these types of people should not be about preventing them from getting a CCW, but rather teach them safety and proficiency so they do not shoot themselves or an innocent bystander.

Chris

waterhouse
May 1, 2008, 12:27 PM
Anyone carrying a gun in public should be required to be proficient in its use. Save me the 2nd Amendments arguments this is a matter of public safety. My safety, my family’s safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall.

I firmly believe that I, or any other law abiding citizen, should be allowed to own what ever we wish. Carrying (and possibly using) a gun in public is a different matter. What you have at home is (or should be) no bodies business but your own. What you do on the street impacts my safety and is therefore my business as well.

I hear what you are saying, but there are many issues with this line of thinking. You personally feel that there should be a certain level of proficiency. You feel this way because you feel that untrained people walking around with guns has an impact on your safety, and the safety of your family.

The antis have a similar argument, but in their case they feel that anyone non-LEO walking around with a gun has a negative impact on their safety. And the children.

I personally feel that anyone who carries a firearm should receive training. Making that training mandatory, however, and requiring certain levels of proficiency, is a slippery slope that I don't want to head down.

I know when I got my permit in Virginia I had to take a "Basic Safety Class" or something like that. I went to an NRA class, shot some rounds at the range (no score), and the gave me a certificate. This method seemed to work fine.

In Texas, they do have a "proficiency" test, although I can't imagine how anyone could fail it (as you saw in your class, the target is large and the distances are close). In that case, the proficiency test means very little. You can miss the large target several times and still pass. I think the only purpose of having this proficiency exam was to get the bill passed: "Look guys, they have to show they can hit a target and have 15 hours of classroom lecture. These people will be well trained." It is another feel good measure that in reality doesn't mean anything. If everyone passes, why does there need to be a test?

On the other extreme, what if the proficiency test was something that Rob Leatham and maybe the other top 500 shooters in the nation could pass? That would essentially be a "ban" on concealed carry.

Who decides what level of proficiency is acceptable? Do they have to be able to shoot as accurately and as quickly as you? Me? Rob Leatham?

Headless
May 1, 2008, 12:39 PM
*shrug*
I took a gunshow class for my CCW here in tallahassee, FL and was unimpressed with the instructor. The class was mainly about when you can use force, and where you can carry. For our 'live fire', we were handed 2 colibri rounds to load into a .22 revolver, which we then shot into a target at a distance of about 5 feet. Plat. Plat. You're done - next up! So, I got qualified, very easily. So what? I can hit tennis balls consistently at 15 yards+ w/ my 9mm or .40. The class doesn't mean anything in the first place.

I don't see a problem; people should be able to carry their firearm wherever they want without a permit in the first place. If you are allowed to buy a gun, why shouldn't you be allowed to carry it?

A couple of hours of 'training' in one sitting doesn't make someone proficient with a firearm anyway; either someone is going to be of their own accord, or they won't. Does anyone really believe that firing 50-100 rounds downrange during CCW qualifying really makes someone 'proficient'? It took me a couple thousand rounds before i considered myself 'proficient' with my guns; most people i've introduced to guns have not been proficient after firing hundreds of rounds. It takes time and practice to build up familiarity and skill with handguns.

rbernie
May 1, 2008, 01:00 PM
I believe in training. I believe in regular and focused practice. But I do not believe that we are a safer society by having mandatory licensing or qualification standards; I believe that all those restrictions accomplish is to pad the statistics for 'gun crimes' when folk are found to have a firearm without the mandatory slip of paper.

It will be so difficult to get a carry permit that a large number of folks will carry without a permit. Lord knows there are enough of them out there already with guns and no permit. Let's add more.
Exactly - and now they're illegal gun owners, so we can cart them off to jail and declare a need for more gun laws.

<sigh>

Who believes that failing to pass a CHL test will prevent anyone from carrying? The lack of a slip of paper is no more a deterrent than putting up 'Gun Free Zone' signs on doors and walls. Look at the number of unlicensed drivers on the road every day (especially those of us who live close to the southern border), if you want a real-world example of how a licensing barrier is not a behavioral impediment.

I know, let's make them qualify at 50 yards so they'll be really good.The end result. Make the training so expensive and the qualification barrier so onerous that most folks can't start or won't try.

It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with controlling the gun culture. Anyone who believes otherwise needs only to look to other areas where competency evaluations are required by law to see how ineffective those laws really are.

Geronimo45
May 1, 2008, 01:08 PM
What, exactly, is the point and purpose of the CCW/CWP/CHL classes?
The long and arduous Texas class exists to teach you the law, not to teach you how to shoot. You should already know how to shoot when you show up. The shooting qualification is to ensure you can see the target, and have a basic understanding of firing the gun at that target.
It's a law class with a gun section, not a basic handgun course.

Soybomb
May 1, 2008, 01:13 PM
Let the flames begin! Anyone carrying a gun in public should be required to be proficient in its use. Save me the 2nd Amendments arguments this is a matter of public safety. My safety, my family’s safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall.

I firmly believe that I, or any other law abiding citizen, should be allowed to own what ever we wish. Carrying (and possibly using) a gun in public is a different matter. What you have at home is (or should be) no bodies business but your own. What you do on the street impacts my safety and is therefore my business as well.

I have a CHL and carry every place that it is allowed. Texas has some of the most stringent requirements in the country for concealed carry and I still get the shivers when I think back to my CHL class. Everyone passed but I’m more afraid of some of them than I would be some ‘banger on the street. One of the students scored 173 out of 250 on the range and this was because the instructor was being generous. The minimum is 170. I stood there and watched her miss the target at 7 yards! I hope to God that I’m behind her if she ever pulls her weapon.

The 2nd Amendment is the single greatest protection we have as citizens and I will protect it with every means available to me. But, like all rights, there are limits. Any right that impacts the rights of others has limits. The safety of my family is at the top of the list.
I'll give you the same basic challenge I give every anti I debate with, show me the evidence. There are plenty of states with either no permit requirements to carry or no training requirements to get a permit there is not reason to "firmly believe" imagine, guess, suppose or anything else. People that carry without a state mandated training class are either at this point easily demonstrated to be dangerous or they aren't. That doesn't mean people shouldn't seek training, but I seriously question what a state mandated anything does to ensure safety. There's plenty of data out there. Is your position supported by it or is it only your guess like the positions of the brady group?

gym
May 1, 2008, 01:29 PM
Once they opened the floodgates, they aren't going to make you qualify. 35 years ago, I got a carry, in a state that had one of the most restrictive policys, but you needed to carry large sums of cash, and be able to prove it with letters from the bank etc. But still no real hands on training. Now I live in Fl, and anyone can carry, it's their right isn't it? Well you have to know that once they put it out there, it's hard to change the rules. The states would end up with an endless amount of litigation.

dawgfishboy
May 1, 2008, 01:46 PM
"Unlike Texas, we do not have to have so many rounds at 10 feet or so many rounds at 15 feet. Florida just doesn't have that," said Buddy Bevis, director of licensing for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services."

10 or 15 FEET?

more like 3, 7, and 15 YARDS in Texas, not feet.

Robert Hairless
May 1, 2008, 02:42 PM
Opps..my bad. It was a full " MAG " and a round in the chamber that he pointed at me.

Clip, Magazine, it still doesn't make the issue of handing a loaded gun to someone barrel first with it pointed at their stomach OK.

He was non military, had little experience with firearms and his only training came from his CCW class. It seems they would have at least taught him the proper way to handle a firearm and how to safely hand off a weapon to a second person.

The majority of us on this site have a lot of experience with different firearms so we sometimes forget, there are those who will purchase a firearm and take a CCW class and never have handled a gun before in their life until that point in time. These are the people who will benefit from a good class using REAL firearms.

I simply feel that these classes for these types of people should not be about preventing them from getting a CCW, but rather teach them safety and proficiency so they do not shoot themselves or an innocent bystander.

Chris

Darn. I'd half hoped that it wasn't a mistake and that there was a clip fed .45 ACP semi-auto pistol. Yup, whether you meant clip or magazine isn't nearly as important as that your friend handed you the gun with its muzzle pointed at your tummy. I'm also pretty sure you meant muzzle and not barrel and that you know the difference. Just another mistake I guess.

Your point, though, is the same as that of many other virtuous, experienced people in this thread who advocate rigorous training for CWP holders: they should have it--with real firearms--before being allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense. That's the point that interests me and it's the one I've tried to discuss.

One of the most interesting things about training, though, is that it's never rigorous enough to be more than barely adequate. Your friend had taken the minimal training required of people who want to have a concealed weapons permit to defend their lives in your state, but it didn't prevent him from carelessly handing his firearm to you with its muzzle pointed at you. The solution, you think, is to require more training.

Your friend is not military but you're an ex-marine who doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine or a muzzle and a barrel, so maybe the Corps. or you just doesn't consider proper nominclature important anymore, or perhaps not even the training given by the Marine Corps is adequate.

I've often been to shooting ranges used by police academy students and law enforcement officers for practice before their qualifications, and I've been swept by two or more at every moment I've been there until I flee. I've even seen some of our finest and would-be finest shoot the wrong targets and do some otherwise bizarre things I never imagined possible. One could argue against the proposition that the training received by law enforcement just isn't adequate either.

So I guess we could generalize by saying that the training received by civilians, the military, and the police just isn't good enough. I've seen those arguments made individually, by the way, but I don't recall that anyone else has put them all together until now. But I think it's possible and reasonable to do so.

In fact it's worth doing because it demonstrates some of Hairless's Rules. Rule 397 is that no matter the standard, there always are individuals who will never meet it. Rule 398 is that its possible to distort the picture of any group by carefully selecting those within that group you choose to represent it. Rule 400, though, seems most applicable: it's easy to deny anyone or any group a right by imposing qualifications on the exercise of that right.

Those qualifications can look relevant and can even look as if they're both commonsensical and fundamental. Who, for example, could argue against the need for an informed electorate? People who don't know or understand complex issues can do a lot of damage if they are allowed to vote, and especially if their votes are weighted the same as those who have been trained to read, study, and think before they vote. Why should the untrained be allowed to vote? What, really, is wrong with good solid literacy tests? And why shouldn't all people be required to produce evidence of having passed a recent qualification test in civics, history, economics, and politics before being permitted to cast a ballot? Perhaps it's unfashionable to talk this way, but what could be wrong with having such sensible requirements before people are allowed to become the electorate in each election.

Rule 400 is interesting. Most of the people here are experienced voters who wouldn't have any trouble passing those poll tests, but do we really want to allow the other people--those not as knowledgable or experienced or as good as we are--to vote? Or be able to have the means to defend their own lives against deadly force?

I suppose there are some issues of world view involved in these considerations. I'm not what someone called an "aginner" nor am I basically an excluder. I tend to be an includer. I want as many people voting as possible and I want as many people as possible to have the means to defend their lives, so I don't want literacy tests for people who want to participate in the electoral process or training standards for people who want to live.

It takes a village to raise a shooter. I consider myself part of that village. I'm much less interested in chewing on other people for not meeting my own extraordinarily exalted standards than in helping them function.

No need to rub your eyes in wonder. I am indeed saying that I don't believe in the need for any training requirement at all before anyone is issued a CWP. More than that, I also don't believe that there should be a CWP. I do believe that people have the right to defend their own lives and the lives of their family. And I also do believe that the right is fictitious, illusory, a scam, and a sham if they are denied the means to defend against superior force. It is not enough for a legislature to say with one face that it's okay to defend your life while saying with its other face that there are conditions you must meet before you are allowed the means to do so. And I don't admire CWP holders who urge such conditions for other people.

RH822
May 1, 2008, 02:49 PM
Indiana has no training requirements. Please show the proof that Indiana is any less safe than those states that infringe upon your RIGHT by adding one more hoop you have to jump through in order to protect yourself.
I think having to apply for a permit in the first place in nonsense. It seems that some of you feel that only EXPERTS are good enough to protect them selves with a gun in public and if they don't meet your standards, WELL sorry bout your luck! Not everybody is a good shot and proving it shouldn't be a requirement.

RH

Sav .250
May 1, 2008, 02:53 PM
My boys fired live rounds. Wait till I tell them they could have played with a toy gun. Brings back memories of the old Cowboys and Indians back yard gun fights.
My brother is a certified instructor. Now I`m wondering is he has a toy or a Glock in his holster. :D

Soybomb
May 1, 2008, 03:19 PM
Most people seem to figure out on their own that guns are dangerous
I think thats really the core of it. It seems foolish to believe that an afternoon training class can fix the kind of stupid that is behind the rare gun accidents.

When I see some statistics showing otherwise, I'll change my tune.

.cheese.
May 1, 2008, 03:33 PM
I fired live rounds in my qualification. A target was set up at the range, I shot it, something like 10 times with the instructors Beretta 92F (a surprisingly accurate gun IMO after all the negative stories I had heard about it).

"toy guns" were also used (blue replicas) for the segment where I was taught how to deal with common threats.

Why? The media might ask this. It's simple. I'M NOT GOING TO POINT A LIVE GUN AT MY INSTRUCTOR!

If the media would prefer that live guns be used at all times, that's fine. I'll let them teach the classes and get themselves shot.

USMC 1975
May 1, 2008, 03:35 PM
It takes a village to raise a shooter. I consider myself part of that village. I'm much less interested in chewing on other people for not meeting my own extraordinarily exalted standards than in helping them function.


Your right......it's the rest of the world that is wrong. Dang, glad you got me to see the light here with your last post. I bow to your superior word usage, knowledge and opinions.

I know better then to argue with the self righteous.... so game done. Besides I am just an old Marine who spent to much time in the mud.

Chris

docmagnum357
May 18, 2008, 11:53 PM
As a certified instructor, I think I should weigh in on this. In my humble opion, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, who are required to take a forty hour class in North Carolina, don't get nearly enough training. CCW permit class in North Carolina is at least eight hours long, with a minimum of two hours spent on law. Only thirty shots are required to qualify. Eighty percent must be hits, on a "silouette type target". I wish there were some way to add a time limit, or make them qualify at ranges longer than 3, 5, and 7 yards. I also wish that I could make them carry 24/7. Three kinds of guns are worthless. The first is the one you don't have with you. The second is the one you can't hit anything with. The third is the one you won't use.
Nothing will replace trigger time with the weapon you will actually carry. If you can use some kind of wax or rubber bullets in a revolver, or a .22 conversion on your autoloader, and practice in a SAFE manner in your garage or basement, then you should shoot about three thousand rounds a month until you get your speed up to drawing and firing two or three shots on targets the size of a snuff can lid a twenty one feet, in two to three seconds. I leave this as an either or because some people can't morally justifie the failure to stop drill, or the two to body one to head, as it is almost universally fatal.
The level of training that CCW permitees get is a moral quandry for me. On the one hand, I know the level of proficency that makes me feel comfortable in my abilities. I also know what it cost me in time and money. I know that the majority of my students will never shoot more than a few hundred rounds of ammunition a year. Many of them will only renew thier permits once, if ever. Less than ten percent will ever understand that the only gun that they can depend on is the one they have on them, right now. Most of them will cripple themselves by buying a gun "made for concealed carry". I can put six shots through the head of a sillouete target with my detective's special at twenty five yards, given eight to ten seconds. Most of them will never be able to put all their bullet in the kill zone from twenty five yards FROM A REST! WITH A SERVICE SIZED HANDGUN!
On the other hand, I can see that someone with a carry permit should be well versed in the laws concerning the use of deadly force, and when they get their permit, they have a vested interest in the great second ammendment debate. The more guns there are on the street, in a holster on the side of an upstanding citizen,the less violent crime there will be. The more people get carry permits, the less afraid the anti gunners will be. Statistical evidence (wich the antis ignore or twist) already shows any reasonable person(again, not a common trait amoung antis) CCw permit holders are not a menace to society, but a great help, like a person who knows first aid or cpr.
There will always be trainers who are in it for the money. There are two others in my area who practice good ethics, and run a class that passes the minimum standards set by ther state. Every one of the rest of them in my area Have reorted to teaching classes less than eight hours long, and a lot of other stuff that is ILLEGAL.
As for me, I have decided to take the high road. My classes never have more than eight people, six is preferable. I take them to a public range, that they can use anytime for free. It is outdoor, and never crowded, so they avoid the two hazards of an in door comercial range , lead poisioning and getting shot by some idiot. I have decided to teach them how to reload Speer plastic cases for 38/357, and to show them all about 22 conversions for GLOCKs and other autos. I beat them over the head not so much about caliber, as anything more powerful than a +p 38 will work, PROVIDED THE HANDGUN IS ACCURATE ENOUGH TO HIT SOMETHING. I have broken the eight hours into Friday night and Saturday morning sessions, so butt fatigue doesn't cause brain sleep. I want them to ask questions, and to replay parts of the one video I use( legal stuff) over until they get it.
If you haven't guessed by now, I'm a crusader. I believe in personal security. I am a deacon in my church, and I spend many hours most weeks volunteering there. I am a prayer leader, I am on the security team, I sometimes go on visitation, and often write or call radio and news paper media concerning moral issues, right to life, and gun rights. I open and close my classes with prayer, as the battle is the Lord's. In the world I am working for, the prisons would be nearly empty, not because of people"taking the law into their own hands", but because the would use deadly force often enough to 1, kill a good many rapists, murderers, and armed robbers, and 2, scare a lot of people who think about commiting these kind of crimes into getting a real job.

akodo
May 19, 2008, 01:36 AM
It is absolutely rediculous that two women could have stakers, both fill out "restraining orders" and both apply for CCW permits. Both pass the background checks to purchase guns, and both attend the same class.

Person A scores 81 on the target shoot and can legally be armed when out and about, Person B scores 79 and cannot.

That is why I am against "tests"

I do strongly encourage people to learn to use a tool they have, but our rights are not hinged on how good of a shot we are. What is next, no free speech if you misspell too many words, or switch your there and their?


But then technically, I am against any sort of permitting system. As long as you are not a felon or a nutcase, go at it.

I wouldn't strongly object to a requirement of firing X amount of shots with supervison and coaching, but I do object to some arbitrary score number being used to determine if you have the right to carry or not

loneviking
May 19, 2008, 02:32 AM
DocMagnum, I'm with you on the CCW issue. I hate to see folks denied permits, but there really should be a tougher test than 3,5, and 7 yards. If that's all that these folks can do they are setting themselves (and possibly innocent bystanders) up for a lot of trouble if a real BG comes calling.

On the other hand, how do you balance the testing process and create limits when you have the 2nd Amendment words 'shall not be infringed' looking you in the face?

Soybomb
May 19, 2008, 03:04 AM
I've tried to beat this horse to death but it keeps coming back :D

there really should be a tougher test than 3,5, and 7 yards
Why? Is there a problem with the current concealed carry process that you're trying to fix? If there is no problem it seems like you're guilty of the same "I imagine" style of law making the brady group loves.

Sunray
May 19, 2008, 03:53 AM
"..."You can only train a corpse in 3 hours," Col. James K. Otto Sr..." What do you figure he wants to train a corpse to do? Ya gotta love a guy who can use the Queen's English so eloquently.
"...That is why I am against "tests"..." Score numbers are arbitrary. However, there has to be some number. Even if it's daft.
"...The more people get carry permits, the less afraid the anti gunners will be..." Gotta disagree with that. The anti-firearms types don't care about the number of CCW's there are. They don't think you should be allowed to own any firearm. Period.
"...twenty five yards..." That'd be target shooting distance. Unless a criminal has a firearm, he's no threat at 25 yards/75 feet. 75 feet is wider than a lot of housing lots, these days.
"...beat them over the head not so much about caliber..." You ever mention the fit of a handgun? Ever have somebody on a course with a handgun that clearly is too big for their hand? Just curious.

loneviking
May 19, 2008, 05:06 AM
Soybomb, yes there is a problem. If you can't hit consistently in the 9 and 10 ring at 25 yards, I wouldn't call you proficient with your weapon. I don't want CCW's getting involved in a shooting where their aim is so poor that they are a danger to others. The shooting requirement has become so watered down as to be meaningless.

And yet, I do understand where you are coming from and I do understand why many folks think that such stringent testing violates the 2nd amendment. I just wish that there was an easier way to straighten out some folks 'Hollywood style' thinking that they can pick up any gun and be instantly accurate with it at all ranges. Firing at 3,5 and 7 yards reinforces this nonsense while a tougher test might make them say 'gee, maybe I need to put a few hundred rounds through the gun and then come back'.

loneviking
May 19, 2008, 05:10 AM
Sunray, a lot of criminals in my neck of the woods seem to have handguns these days. And it's a heck of a lot less dangerous to be able to stop a threat at 25 yards/75 feet than up close. Have you ever looked at any of the stats from a good trainer like Gabe Suarez at how fast a BG can close a 21 ft. distance? Many times the students don't even have time to get their weapons out before the BG is on top of them.

Sixtigers
May 19, 2008, 05:48 AM
Mr. Robert Hairless:

I salute you, sir. Your very eloquent statement summarizes my feelings exactly. It is nice to know I'm not alone, and that an obviously literate person shares my sentiments in re firearms training and ownership.

Phil DeGraves
May 19, 2008, 10:19 AM
"My safety, my family’s safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall."

So what ignorant govt agency is going to set the standard
for "competence"?

"If you can't hit consistently in the 9 and 10 ring at 25 yards, I wouldn't call you proficient with your weapon."

Then (according to you and I do not necessarily disagree) 95% of the police are incompetent with their firearm, yet they are still allowed to carry a weapon.

Yes, they should get training. But training should not be a mandate in order to exercise a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

Besides that, range time has almost NOTHING to do with gunfight dynamics. Qualification is NOT training!

The fact is, most civilian shooters are BETTER trained than their police counterparts. Why? Because the civilian shooter PAID for the training out of his own pocket and WANTS to be there.

Cacique500
May 19, 2008, 10:43 AM
IMHO the CCW classes should focus on the LAW, not on shooting proficiency. In every state where I've applied for a CCW I took the "local" CCW class whether it was state mandated or not...just to get a head start on the local carry laws. Then I would go home and research the actual code.

Keep in mind that the VAST majority of people applying for a CCW are not "gun people". If I had a penny for everytime some little old lady told me she didn't want to shoot anybody, she'd just pull her gun out and scare the bad guy away... :banghead:

Since most of us who read this forum are "gun people" we (for the most part) know the laws of our state and practice as often as we can at the range. The VAST majority of people will buy a gun and throw it in a dresser drawer and will never practice with it nor seek any kind of formal instruction. Just because you own it doesn't mean you know how to use it. There's a great video on youtube of a guy that bought a helicopter. He had NO instruction on how to fly it. Jumped in, got the thing off the ground up to about 200 feet and you can guess the rest. A large smoking pile of busted helicopter...stupid is as stupid does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMao1e7f03Q

Soybomb
May 19, 2008, 01:10 PM
Soybomb, yes there is a problem. If you can't hit consistently in the 9 and 10 ring at 25 yards, I wouldn't call you proficient with your weapon. I don't want CCW's getting involved in a shooting where their aim is so poor that they are a danger to others. The shooting requirement has become so watered down as to be meaningless.
Why does it matter what you feel is sufficient skill to carry? We've got a lot of data on real world concealed carry. Can't we look at the real world outcome and not just imagine? If the shooting requirement is watered down and meaningless we've had a ton of people carrying guns in a ton of states for a ton of years under such requirements. If it really is dangerous shouldn't there be facts in the form of incidences caused by their lack of proficiency to back that up?

If you only feel that the current standards are dangerous but can't show that they truly are, isn't that just the same as the brady group insisting that "assault rifles" are dangerous even though we can look at the murder rates and see that hardly any muders are committed with rifles at all?

Phil DeGraves
May 19, 2008, 01:41 PM
"I don't want CCW's getting involved in a shooting where their aim is so poor that they are a danger to others."

So you think they are more of a danger than the armed bad guy that is already shooting people?

History has shown us that the law abiding are VERY reluctant to open fire on anybody, justified or not. The reasons are numerous ranging from moral and religious all the way to not wanting to draw attention to themselves if they miss. Is there ANY case that you know of where an ARMED CIVILIAN shot the guy he wasn't aiming at?
Sounds like more elitist "Nobody should have a gun but me" BS that the antis always spout.

Aguila Blanca
May 19, 2008, 02:52 PM
Shoddy training became an issue this month, more than a year after a retired military officer first complained to Gov. Charlie Crist about classes at gun shows.

"You can only train a corpse in 3 hours," Col. James K. Otto Sr., an NRA instructor from North Florida, wrote to the governor. "Our NRA certified instructors take 3 days to a week to make sure their students not only know the law but also know how to handle firearms and ammunition safely with at least a half day firing at a local range."

The letter started a sputtering chain reaction after landing on Bevis' desk with the added detail that some students at these classes trained with toy guns. Bevis called the voice of the NRA in Florida to complain.
This dude is going to ruin it for everyone.

The law does not require that every graduate be a marksman -- the law requires that permit applicants be able to handle a firearm "safely." It does not require three days to teach that, and it does not require a half day or more on the firing line.

Sheesh!

Let the flames begin! Anyone carrying a gun in public should be required to be proficient in its use. Save me the 2nd Amendments arguments this is a matter of public safety. My safety, my family’s safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall.
Sorry, but I will NOT spare you the 2nd Amendment arguments. Why should your perceptions of your level of comfort be allowed to restrict my Constitutionally-guaranteed RIGHT to keep and bear arms? If you think training is so all-important ... get a Constitutional amendment passed to revise the 2nd Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" means what it says.

F4GIB
May 19, 2008, 02:54 PM
Posters on this board like guns. We love to shoot them. So we love to shoot them in training. But reality isn't on our side.

Self defense occurs in 3 seconds at 3 yards and takes 3 shots.
It doesn't require an Olympic champion. The most difficult element of the self defense scenario, is deciding when to legally pull the trigger.

That why for over 60 years and over 40 years, respectively, neither Pennsylvania nor Washington have required any training at all. Between them those two states currently have over 1,000,000 "untrained" carry permit holders and over the years they have had well over 10,000,000 "untrained" permit holders, with NO PROBLEM at all!

Add another 300,000 for Indiana.

Aguila Blanca
May 19, 2008, 03:23 PM
Sunray, a lot of criminals in my neck of the woods seem to have handguns these days. And it's a heck of a lot less dangerous to be able to stop a threat at 25 yards/75 feet than up close. Have you ever looked at any of the stats from a good trainer like Gabe Suarez at how fast a BG can close a 21 ft. distance? Many times the students don't even have time to get their weapons out before the BG is on top of them.
Don't mix metaphors. There's a huge difference between 75 feet and 21 feet. Gabe Suarez didn't invent that 21-foot criterion. Google "Tueller drill" ... you'll see that the 21-foot figure was developed from experiments, and it was developed for uniformed police officers as a "guideline" (not a rule) for knowing when to draw their weapon -- NOT when to shoot.

The 21-foot rule has come to be almost universally misinterpreted to say that anything that moves within 21 feet must be shot. In essence, that a 21-foot radius around you is a free fire zone. That's NOT why or how it was developed.

Lt. Tueller was seeking a way of helping rookies understand the sort of 6th sense that veteran officers pick up as to when a situation is a SITUATION, calling for drawing the duty weapon. The 21-foot rule was developed in two parts. First, the LT had several officers draw their duty weapon and bring it to bear on a paper target. The average time was 1.5 seconds.

Next, he had an officer playing assailant, armed with a rubber knife, start off facing away from an officer. When the timer sounded, the "assailant" would draw the rubber knife, do an about face, rush the officer and stab him in the chest. The goal was to see what distance the assailant could do this from within the 1.5 seconds it took the average officer to draw and fire. The magic distance turned out to be 21 feet.

So ... what does this show? It shows that someone standing 21 feet away (that's about the depth of a single parking stall at a Wal-Mart) is a potential threat. For anyone not using the type of holster Lt. Tueller's class was using, the number is invalid. A concealed carrier may be at a disadvantage compared to a uniformed officer carrying in a duty rig. On the other hand, the duty rig had a retention holster, whereas most CCW holsters are NOT retention holsters. At best, for anyone other than Lt. Tueller's class the 21 feet is an approximation, not a hard-and-fast rule.

What is does do, though, is suggest that while you might (might) be justified in shooting at a guy holding a knife if he's 20 feet away from you, you probably aren't ever going to be able to show justification for shooting at him if he's 75 feet away. Therefore, while being able to shoot 1.37" groups at 75 feet one-handed on a windy day is great for bragging rights ... to the average CCW holder whose primary purpose in owning and carrying a gun is self-defense, the ability to shoot a gnat's eyeball at 75 feet doesn't mean squat. Why? Because legally you probably shouldn't be shooting at someone that far away in the first place. And ESPECIALLY in states that still have a duty to retreat in their laws.

Zoogster
May 19, 2008, 03:51 PM
People do not need training requirements. They need to be very aware they are responsible for every round they fire, and if they hit an innocent person they will face civil and possibly criminal charges in the range of manslaughter. If they damage property they will be liable for the costs of replacing or repairing that property.
They should be encouraged to practice, but as a requirement it is excessive.

Does a blind man not have the right to defend himself? Now you think "blind", yeah he is unqualified. Yet blind people are very aware with thier hearing, and learn to tell exactly where a person is through it. They also become very familiar with the layout of rooms and areas they frequent and can walk around with no problem whatsoever quite quickly. Similar to how people get around in thier own home in the dark, only better. They can understand fatal funnels and use the layout to thier advantage, as well as make contact shots in a struggle.
Now I do not want a blind individual shooting at someone in public from feet away. Yet I do believe they have the right to carry a firearm and discharge it into the body of someone that attacks them until the attack ceases.
Do you not agree?

A high level of profeciency with a firearm helps tremendously, yet it is not required in all situations for self defense. It just makes them more capable and versatile.
If I was blind I would much rather be able to carry a firearm and have that stored energy at my disposal even if limited to contact ranges against a threat rather than not carry at all, especialy since being disabled would make fighting more difficult.
It would be my responsibilty to insure I was in contact range and the muzzle was shoved into or next to my attacker for each shot and not posing an unnecessary threat to others. It would be my responsibilty to use a round that did not pose unnecessary danger to those behind the shooter.

Yet shooting requirements mean carry is illegal for such a person, even such a person that would only fire thier weapon from inches away after being attacked.
Is that right? Is that in line with the rights of everyone to defend themselves and be responsible for thier actions?

XDKingslayer
May 19, 2008, 04:37 PM
Wait until they figure out that you don't need training if your prior military and that most prior military have little if any pistol training.

A buddy of mine never even touched a pistol but had a Florida CCW handed to him because he's prior military.

pbearperry
May 19, 2008, 04:42 PM
I just love all the so called reliable info spit out by members of this forum.Most of the people throwing out facts and figures are so full of it its funny.One thing I have found out bout the internet is that there are tons of bad info out there.Garbage in garbage out.However ,that's why I come here,for the entertainment .lol

Lashlarue
May 19, 2008, 04:45 PM
Most applicants wouldn't be applying if they didn't know how to shoot. In my class the instructor soon found out who the newbies were, and urged them to practice on the range before actually qualifying. Some did, most didn't!The cute little girl in the lane next to mine couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if firing inside that barn.The instructor made it a point to teach her how to shoot and he only had 50 rounds to get it done.By the time we reached the long distance part[7 yds] that girl was a regular Annie Oakley. She had overcome her fear of the gun and would have scored a perfect score if allowed a do over.One woman failed because the gun she brought was a rusty relic from early in the 20th century. I was rather proud of my perfect score till I found that more than half the class had perfect scores.

mr.trooper
May 19, 2008, 05:02 PM
Indiana has no training requirements. Please show the proof that Indiana is any less safe than those states that infringe upon your RIGHT by adding one more hoop you have to jump through in order to protect yourself.
I think having to apply for a permit in the first place in nonsense. It seems that some of you feel that only EXPERTS are good enough to protect them selves with a gun in public and if they don't meet your standards, WELL sorry bout your luck! Not everybody is a good shot and proving it shouldn't be a requirement.

RH

Here in Indiana most people who don't now how to shoot guns don't own them. let alone carry them.

pbearperry
May 19, 2008, 06:26 PM
IMO there is no reason to make civilians shoot handguns out at 25 yds.Yes if you are Military or Police.Civilian shootings are all up close and personal.If a civilian is 25 yds away he can usually just create more distance and escape.I think too many people here are watching too many Hollywood movies.Even the average Police shootings are 7-12 feet away on the average.

akodo
May 20, 2008, 12:22 AM
Sunray writes "...That is why I am against "tests"..." Score numbers are arbitrary. However, there has to be some number. Even if it's daft.

First, the quote button is the square "balloon" with little lines in it, like cartoon characters use.

Second, couldn't you use this "got to pick an arbitrary number, even if it is daft" argument to have a test for any/all rights? This is why we threw out tests to quailfy to vote. We could have had some test and picked an arbitrary score. Except rights are rights, you don't need a test.


LoneViking writes
I don't want CCW's getting involved in a shooting where their aim is so poor that they are a danger to others.

What you want has got nothing to do with it.

Second, the purpose of a person to have a gun on their person as they are out and about is to protect themselves, not you. If a gunfight breaks out and a person is in danger of loosing their life, any person hit by stray gunfire I would lay the blame squarely on the attacker.

In the same manner, if a maniac behind you on the road is shooting at me, trying to run you off the road and kill you, and in the course of your attempting to escape and save your life, you were speeding and ran a red light and got involved in an accident, I would lay the blame of that accident on the maniac who was attempting to kill you.

It seems silly to me that oyu would be all right with a woman getting raped and strangled with her own panties because she didn't score high enough on the test, or because there is some minute chance that if she had a gun her stray bullets might hit you.

Are you going to add other restrictions to CCWs as well that involve bad marksmanship? if an attacker grabs you from behind and starts attacking, you cannot see him exactly, but you free your gun, are you allowed to just point it generally behind you and to where his torso is, even though you cannot see the front site of the gun and fire? Are you disallowed from using your carry weapon if the alley you are attacked in is too dark? If the attackers smash/disable the lights in the empty parking lot just as you reach the middle?

Aguila Blanca
May 20, 2008, 12:27 AM
A buddy of mine never even touched a pistol but had a Florida CCW handed to him because he's prior military.
Ssssshhhhh!

But this demonstrates that the State of Florida understands the purpose of the law. It is not to create marksmen before handing out licenses to carry, it is to ensure a basic level of instruction in firearms safety. Rifle or handgun, the assumption is that military training satisfies that requirement. And it does.

Phil DeGraves
May 20, 2008, 09:28 AM
First, the quote button is the square "balloon" with little lines in it, like cartoon characters use.


Thanks!

pbearperry
May 20, 2008, 09:40 AM
Ok,maybe I can see states requiring a Firearm safety course for first timers,but all this talk about requiring this level of marksmanship and this level of requirements is the same drivel that gun grabbers talk of.It all boils down to more red tape to try to keep folks from being able to obtain their licenses.Pretty soon only wealthy people will be able to carry guns because of the cost.

Bailey Guns
May 20, 2008, 10:36 AM
Elza wrote:Let the flames begin! Anyone carrying a gun in public should be required to be proficient in its use. Save me the 2nd Amendments arguments this is a matter of public safety. My safety, my familyís safety, your safety depends upon some neophyte pulling a trigger in the mall.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're not as proficient as I am. Nor have you been shooting as long as I have, thus I consider you a "neophyte". Frankly, since your skills don't rise to my definition of "proficient", and since you don't possess the required amount of experience, I don't think you should have a permit. Just doesn't make me "feel" safe to know you're out there in public, toting a gun around, endangering my family and me.

Vern Humphrey
May 20, 2008, 10:53 AM
I have been in the military and commercial training business for a long time and have said many times; training is a solution. Before your advocate a solution, you should have a problem.

And ideally, there should be some relation between the problem and the proposed solution.

I have had people who advocate "more training" for concealed handgun license say, "Well, they ought to at least be able to strip it down and clean it." Those people obviously thought the problem was too many dirty guns.

So tell me, what's the problem? And what documentation do you have?

XDKingslayer
May 20, 2008, 10:55 AM
But this demonstrates that the State of Florida understands the purpose of the law. It is not to create marksmen before handing out licenses to carry, it is to ensure a basic level of instruction in firearms safety. Rifle or handgun, the assumption is that military training satisfies that requirement. And it does.

You're absolutely correct. Florida has always understood the law. Florida has never had a problem with it. The only ones that do are Orlando and Miami and those two places are no longer Florida.

Bailey Guns
May 20, 2008, 11:26 AM
Anyone posting information on a publicly accessible internet forum should be 100% accurate in the information they post and should be required to meet minimum proficiency tests in grammar and spelling. Save me the 1st Amendment arguments. This is a matter of public safety. Imagine the carnage that might occur, and the dumbing-down of our society that will be the result should incorrect language or grammar be used or non-factual information be posted where others might read it. My safety, my family's safety, your safety depends on some neophyte pulling out a laptop in a mall wi-fi hotspot.

I firmly believe that I, or any other law abiding citizen, should be allowed to own what ever we wish. Carrying (and possibly using) a laptop in public is a different matter. What you have at home is (or should be) no bodies business but your own. What you do in a wi-fi hotspot out on the street impacts my safety and is therefore my business as well.

I have a laptop and wireless modem and carry them both every place that it is allowed. Texas has some of the most stringent requirements in the country for laptop carry and I still get the shivers when I think back to my high school grammar and civics classes. Everyone passed but Iím more afraid of some of them than I would be some Ďbanger on the street. One of the students scored 173 out of 250 on his civics, spelling and grammar tests and this was because the instructor was being generous. The minimum is 170. I stood there and watched her miss several grammar and constitutional questions! I hope to God that Iím not subjected to her misuse of grammar and spelling errors, not to mention factually deficient posts, if she ever pulls her laptop.

The 1st Amendment is the single greatest protection we have as citizens and I will protect it with every means available to me. But, like all rights, there are limits. Any right that impacts the rights of others has limits. The safety of my family is at the top of the list. If you can't spell, don't understand the constitution or occasionally post incorrect information you have no business posting on the internet.

Vern Humphrey
May 20, 2008, 11:39 AM
Anyone posting information on a publicly accessible internet forum should be 100% accurate in the information they post and should be required to meet minimum proficiency tests in grammar and spelling. Save me the 1st Amendment arguments.
Let me point out that when the Constitution was written, "the press" was a hand-operated screw press, and "speech" was face-to-face. Clearly, "freedom of the press" doesn't apply to modern, high-speed offset presses, and "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to radio, television or the internet.:neener:

XDKingslayer
May 20, 2008, 03:17 PM
What you do in a wi-fi hotspot out on the street impacts my safety and is therefore my business as well.

How, pray tell, does the way a person uses a wifi hotspot impact your safety?

I honestly can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

Vern Humphrey
May 20, 2008, 03:21 PM
How, pray tell, does the way a person uses a wifi hotspot impact your safety?
The pen is mightier than the sword. A wifi is thousands of times more powerful than a mere pen.:D

Regen
May 20, 2008, 03:40 PM
Why do instructors offer limited training? I know that they can offer the classes more cheaply, but from a liability standpoint, why would instructors give you training that just meets the minimum requirement?

I do not yet have my VA CHP, but I am scheduled to take a course next month. The state requires a basic safety course as the only training required. Many instructors offer just this, you take a 4 hour basic safety class (all classroom) and get a certificate you can use to get your CHP.

I shopped around before settling on a class. There were many classes where the instructor give the 4 hour lecture and hands you a certificate. The instructors where alway pushing the hard sell, and seemed to me to be solely trying to get as many people through the class in as little time as possible.

The class I'm taking is a 12 hour class, combined classroom and range time, plus you are expected to know basic safety and be able to shoot prior to taking the class. The instructor requires you to qualify on a timed course of fire before he will issue you the certificate. They charge 3 times what the going rate for the quicky classes are, yet they seem to still always fill up.

Cannonball888
May 20, 2008, 03:55 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/334374065_64e7d04f89.jpg?v=0
Simulated Firearms Training
It's Better than Nothing

pbearperry
May 20, 2008, 04:39 PM
Basic classes are a good start so you can get the permit.If you want to take a more comprehensive class by all means do it but don't require all of the people to take them.Many people just don't have the time or the money to do this.

Correia
May 20, 2008, 05:11 PM
I know a little bit about this subject, and I'm against ANY mandatory training for a permit. I'm a huge fan of training, but only if you want to do it. I'm in favor of Alaska style CCW.

A little background. I am a CCW instructor. In fact, as far as I'm aware, I'm the busiest instructor in Utah. I average 100-150 students per month. I certified just over 1,000 people last year, and that was with taking a couple of months off. Basically, I think that about 2% of the people carrying guns in this state were signed off on by me. So I've got a teensy bit of experience on this subject.

Utah doesn't require a shooting portion.

When I first started out, I did a full on basic handgun class in addition to the lecture portion that was required by the state. What I quickly discovered was the people who were going to be smart, were smart. People that were going to be stupid, were on their best behavior while I watched them, then immediately went back to being stupid when they were on their own.

But even more distressing was the fact that shooting accurately means very little in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me wrong, being able to hit your target is important, but it pales in comparison to the importance of making good decisions. I can teach a monkey to shoot a piece of paper. Teaching you to react intelligently under stress is a whole lot harder.

The big problem? What I saw while working with other instructor's students was a serious lack of knowledge on the law or how violence worked. The Utah course requires a bunch of extraneous stuff that is best learned on your own, or from your owner's manual, but there is almost nothing in there about use of force, when you can shoot, why you should shoot, and absolutely nothing at all about tactics. There's no info about what to do after the shooting, nada.

I also discovered that a bunch of so called experts knew how to punch paper on the range, but knew jack squat about how violent encounters actually unfolded. Instructors like that love big qualifiers, because they can check off of a list, and feel like theyíre accomplishing something. Two shots, five yards. Check.

So I changed my class. If a student wants to learn to shoot better, they can come with me another time and learn to shoot. But I now spend the majority of my class time going over use of force, decision making, and the stuff that keeps you A. alive and B. out of jail.

As far as I know, I'm the only Utah instructor that uses a role playing session. I do it to challenge the student's preconceived notions of how "their gunfight" is going to unfold. (usually it is some variant of them being John McClane). Iíve lost track of how many times Iíve had somebody whoís already been through CCW classes come up to me afterward and comment about how eye opening that was.

Super in-depth qualifiers assuage the conscience of bureaucrats, and that's about it. The article in question points out that police have lousy hit ratios. Well, thatís because gunfights are HARD, and also, most of the cops with the lousy hit rateís training is basically the same type of BS qualifiers that the bureaucrats want to force on CCW holders.

The vast majority of the time, just producing the gun solves the problem for the permit holder, or the violent encounter is so close that you can just jam the muzzle into the bad guyís chest. So why exactly should we put some extra hoops for the permit holder to jump through, that donít really matter, donít really help, and just cause one more expense to getting the permit to begin with.

Bailey Guns
May 20, 2008, 06:23 PM
How, pray tell, does the way a person uses a wifi hotspot impact your safety?

I honestly can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

I knew I'd have to explain it to somebody:

Not only wi-fi hotspots...that was simply an example. Wrong, factually incorrect and dishonest information can be dangerous. Don't believe me? Isn't there a woman being charged right now for the death of a young girl that was caused by her (the woman's) factually dishonest internet posting? Oh...why yes there is. This type of scam or others happens every day on the internet. Not to mention how irritating it is to read posts from people who aren't as proficient as they should be, obviously due to lack of training, in language skills and grammar. If you can't be proficient in the use of your keyboard you have no business posting on the internet.

Happy now?

PS: Can you tell I'm being sarcastic in an attempt to make a point about mandated firearms training?

And to Correia, I couldn't agree more. I tell students in my classes (I average only about 40 per month in Colorado) that so-called training in most classes bears no resemblance to what they will see or how they will act in a lethal force encounter. Colorado does not require a shooting test for a CHP nor should they. I spend the bulk of my class time discussing Colorado law regarding use of force and statutes regarding where one can or can't carry.

Don't get me wrong...any properly applied trigger time is good time. However, it's not a prerequisite, despite how certain people "feel", to making a safe permit holder.

If you enjoyed reading about "Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!