Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
"..."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.
 
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'.
 
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.
 
Mr. Hairless

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.
 
"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.
 
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, 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?
 
"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.
 
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!

Elza said:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
LoneViking said:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top