Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns

[akodo]

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]

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]

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

Thanks!

 

[pbearperry]

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]

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 family’s 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]

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]

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]

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 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 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 I’m 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]

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.

 

[XDKingslayer]

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]

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.

 

[Regen]

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]

Simulated Firearms Training
It's Better than Nothing

 

[pbearperry]

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]

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 they’re 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). I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve had somebody who’s 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, that’s because gunfights are HARD, and also, most of the cops with the lousy hit rate’s 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 guy’s chest. So why exactly should we put some extra hoops for the permit holder to jump through, that don’t really matter, don’t really help, and just cause one more expense to getting the permit to begin with.

 

[Bailey Guns]

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.