Gun Class

[billbenson]

Whether you are a proponent or not of guns, this was interesting.

I went to a local gun show a week ago and took a license to carry class. In Florida where I live, you can't openly carry a gun, but with the license you can carry a concealed weapon with the license. This would include a knife over a certain length.

I don't intend to carry a weapon, I just did it because it was easy and I could.

A couple of struck me as wrong in this whole thing. At least a third of the people in the class were elderly women. I doubt most of them had fired a weapon before. That scares me. No competency is required for the license. I've shot since I was ten, albeit target shooting. I don't consider myself competent to carry a weapon for self defense. With a year of weapon for self defense training I would consider myself competent.

The class consisted of safety precautions, the law, and we had to shoot one round from a gun in a safe manner. That means you pick up the gun without your finger on the trigger, aim at the target, put your finger on the trigger and shoot at the target. You don't even have to hit it.

Please don't turn this into a political discussion. It's just some observations from something I did a week ago.

[Paul]

Without turning this political, I would disagree with you on your conclusion regarding the elderly women. It seems to me that they are the ones that are most vulnerable and need a weapon and at the same time the least likely to misuse a firearm. Now maybe they would be the ones most likely to miss their target but in general I don’t share your fear.

Again without political advocacy, I can say this about myself and as it relates to the elderly. I have never owned a gun for self defense. I never felt I needed one because I always felt I was quick and strong enough to fight or run if needed. However now, although I am not elderly or weak, I am definitely getting older and could not outrun or overpower a strong young attacker. I still don’t own a gun for self defense mainly because I don’t need one where I live BUT if I felt at all threatened I certainly would carry.

Just a few words on behalf of the old folks.

[billbenson]

Well I turned 60 recently.I think that makes me kind of old. I'm also into martial arts for both self defense or the defense of others and exercise. I enjoy it. Believe it or not, someone tried to pick a fight with me within the last year. I've never been in a fight in my life. I just let the guy try to be a bully and sized him up. He was never a threat although he was larger than I am. In martial arts, a lot of the real dangerous people are old and have done it all their lives. And a lot of them have big beer bellies.

As far as the elderly woman comment, I've given or participated in a lot of woman's self defense classes. I'd say the average age group is 30's and 40's. That may taint my perspective a bit.

A while back an elderly widow living next door and had some workers in her garage after 6 pm. They were just handymen. They didn't work for a 'real' company. She went and got her decreased husband's handgun. They finished their job. If I were those workers, I would have left. She had never fired a gun in her life. I find that story amusing but also scary. It's like letting your kid play with knives.

[Brian Altenhofel]

In the interest of full disclosure, I carry a firearm every day and have for nearly 7 years. I also run a fairly popular gun forum.

The requirements for a license vary from state to state. Here in Oklahoma, it's an 8-hour course over safety and the law (often with the instructor filling the last hour or two with concealment and retention techniques as well as Q&A), a test over the course material, plus a 50-round firing session. Rounds just have to go down range. There is a state-mandated maximum price on the class (and most instructors charge the maximum). The course material is put together by CLEET (our LE training and education agency) with the instructors required to have additional certification. (The Instructor Book has been known to occasionally deviate from the actual law, and that's why it's strongly encouraged to read the actual law in addition to taking the course). The reason for the low barrier to licensing is to not run afoul of constitutional protections of rights, privileges, and immunities at both the state and federal levels.

There are a few things to consider when worrying about those who can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn. The first is that most people who get a license don't or rarely carry, especially when absolute concealment is required. They quickly realize that it can be a huge hassle, especially for women given common clothing styles. Many people don't like buying belts that are capable of supporting the weight or pants with adequately sized pockets.

What many people actually get a license for is to transport a loaded firearm in their car while traveling (though some states such as Texas have traveler provisions). Some get it because their significant other carries and they want to be able to legally stay in the car in the event the carrier must disarm before entering a prohibited place. And some just get it because their friends did. Based on some informal polling, we figured that ~10% of those licensed here in Oklahoma actually carry a firearm.

Another thing is law enforcement (on average) also can't hit the broad side of a barn (just look up hit ratios for officer-involved shootings). For most in law enforcement, the only training they do with their firearm is annual qualifying day (and requirements vary greatly depending on jurisdiction and duties). Many of the licensed folks who carry everyday also hit the range at least a couple of times a year as they tend to be gun enthusiasts.

In states that have open carry laws, the primary benefit is for carriers to not have to work as hard at absolute concealment. Most people still carry concealed, but it's kind of half-assed concealment in that it doesn't matter if you can see a bump from the butt of the gun under a shirt or the top of a holster or barrel peeking out. People rarely notice those things anyway, and empty holsters tend to print worse than a holster with a gun in it.

Before open carry passed here in Oklahoma, I carried with an inside-the-waistband holster, bought my jeans 2 inches too big, and bought shirts based on the thickness of the fabric. After, I switched to an outside-the-waistband holster, buy jeans that fit, and buy comfortable shirts (I still like my shirts a little loose). No one notices, and I don't carry a small gun. By the way, I'm around a lot of people who carry on a regular basis, and I can count on one hand how many people I've seen openly carry a firearm. The only time I've openly carried a firearm was when my day out went much longer than expected and I was dressed for the 40F morning and not the 85F afternoon.

Do I need to carry a gun? No. I carry it as an insurance policy. I hope to never need to use it, but it is available if the need arises. I also strongly encourage people who are not 100% comfortable with carrying a firearm (especially with one in the chamber) to not carry a firearm.

[billbenson]

Quite a bit different than Florida. My class was only 2 hours and I shot one round. That is not enough training IMO.

[BizAdvisor]

Rest assured, just because little, old ladies are taking a CCW course, doesn't necessarily mean they plan on packing heat in their handbags... However, it still offers the benefit of being able to carry alternative, non-lethal, defensive weapons that technically also require a permit to "CARRY" concealed in the state of FL; such as stun guns, tasers, expandable batons, pepper sprays... Heck, even screwdrivers or any other household tool that is carried concealed simply to be used as a defensive weapon requires a CCW.

[Harold Mansfield]

It's impossible to have this conversation without being political because it just is. Especially right now.

I think the standards should be a little higher and universal. Just because the right is there, doesn't mean every possible person in the country is capable, mentally stable, and responsible. That's just crazy talk. It's like saying everyone is capable of handling dynamite responsibly, or capable of driving a front loader.

Look at how many hoops we make some people go through just to vote. But guns? Somehow that shouldn't require much scrutiny at all.

But apparently this is the way we want it. Every time I read a story of a kid finding a gun and shooting himself or someone else, or an idiot showing off his new AR at a cookout and "accidentally" killing a friend or family member, I always think maybe that could have been avoided with just some basic skills and safety training. Even just a 1 hour refresher every year, and 10 question, multiple choice test. Something.

Some of you on this forum go through more training, testing and license renewals to operate a power saw, than most people are required to do to own a stock pile of semi automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Is that fair? Would you hire a guy to run your construction crane just because he said he knew what he was doing, and yet had no certifications, or proof of training or experience?

I understand the right. What I don't understand is ignoring the danger of idiots because of the right. We make exceptions ALL OF THE TIME when it comes to rights just ask any felon. NONE of our rights are absolute.

I also don't believe in "accidental" shootings. Unless the gun jumped out of your hand, loaded itself, aimed itself, and squeezed it's own trigger..there's no such thing. They are negligence and I can't believe we just let people off the hook for being negligent, especially where someone was shot or worse killed, but we put people in jail for parking tickets and think that's totally sane.

For some reason in this country guns are one of those things that every one thinks they just know how to instinctively handle well. Not sure if it's years of movies glorifying them, or that so many of us suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect (a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.), but we don't seem to do that with many other things.

We totally accept that we have to take drivers training and pass a test to be licensed to drive a car. And we are outraged when people are driving without a license (or driving with one irresponsibly) and hurt someone. Outraged I say. We expect our home contractors to be licensed, and bonded before we let them even work on our yard. We do background checks on our employees and babysitters. But with guns, we just accept it when people say "I know what I'm doing" and let them walk around on the street with nothing more than their word.

It's just insane how many people walk around thinking that in a life or death, or worse, live fire incident that they are going to miraculously turn into Bruce Willis. When the reality is that those who don't crap their pants immediately are going to panic and are more likely to get themselves killed just by having a gun and immediately escalating a situation, or will fire wildly killing innocent bystanders, shooing an unarmed suspect..or even more extreme but common scenarios, chasing a perp and shooting them in the back, and end up going to prison themselves because they didn't know what they were doing, and couldn't be bothered to take a 30 minute class on proper use of deadly force.

I'm ex Army Military Police and have no problem with guns. I still own the 3 that I carried (not the actual ones, the same models) and can still knock the sweat off of a gnat's ass from 100 yards. Well, maybe 50 :). I fully support everyone's 2nd Amendment rights. It is equally as important as every other Amendment. Not more important. They are numbered for organization. Not in order of importance.

For me it's not political. It's common sense. It's not about the gun. It's about the person. Everyone isn't capable. Even the Military doesn't let just anyone carry. If you're not capable, no matter what your job is going to be, you wash out.

For Pete's sake, we don't even let people store rain water on their own property because we KNOW too many idiots won't take a moment to learn enough about not creating a breeding ground for mosquitoes and being ground zero of the next plague outbreak. WE KNOW people are idiots.

I just think as a society we need to stop being so offended at the suggestion everyone may not be that smart, and ask for just some basic universal standards the same way we do with everything else and stop just giving, trading and selling guns to anyone on the street just because they give a wink and a secret handshake.

But that's probably too much to ask in a country that thinks it's totally appropriate to drug test people for asking for help eating, but not ask people ( in some states) who carry weapons to do the same, or pass some kind of skills and safety test.

Personally, I would wear my training and skills qualifications with pride. So that the rest of my fellow Americans would truly know that not only am I really a good guy with a gun, completely legal and legit, but that I also know what I'm doing with it.

But that's just me.

</rant>

[billbenson]

I think we pretty much said the same thing Harold. Perhaps someone who has been in the military and doesn't have PTSD or an ex police officer etc should be allowed to use that background to shorten the training process.

Like I said, even though I have done a LOT of target shooting in my life, I don't think I am qualified to carry a concealed weapon for defense purposes. My wife goes to some bad parts of town. She's ok if she is alone. If I am with her, its more dangerous because there is a prejudice against mixed couples in those areas. I might stick a gun in my car in that situation. I have a friend that teaches gun classes as well. He's ex military. I want to talk to him about taking some classes.

[Harold Mansfield]

I wouldn't mind one bit living in a society where gun safety and skills was required, and people who wanted to carry, carried, and everyone owned. That would be completely fine with me. Maybe it's my Army experience, but at least on base around 100 or 100k soldiers you know that everyone went through the same training and are less likely to shoot you by mistake or because they panicked. You also know that they were cleared to carry.

What I can't handle is just letting everyone do it, and the standards for ownership, carrying, and sales being different from state to state, as if roads don't exist and every state is a bubble. It's a Constitutional right, therefore the standards should be federal.

[billbenson]

With the changes in warfare to guerrilla warfare i.e. ISIS, I can see the possibility of that type of war come within the US borders. I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it's possible. Armed civilians may become a necessity. It's not today though. That's something that worries me.

We will have to see what the next president comes up with to keep our country safe.

[Fulcrum]

With the changes in warfare to guerrilla warfare i.e. ISIS, I can see the possibility of that type of war come within the US borders. I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it's possible. Armed civilians may become a necessity. It's not today though. That's something that worries me.

Agreed. Though I think it will be in more countries than just the US.

As for the original topic, the class teaching proper safety is a good thing and should be required. Skills and safety can only be learned properly through correct instruction.

[Harold Mansfield]

With the changes in warfare to guerrilla warfare i.e. ISIS, I can see the possibility of that type of war come within the US borders. I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it's possible. Armed civilians may become a necessity. It's not today though. That's something that worries me.

We will have to see what the next president comes up with to keep our country safe.
Totally disagree. In no world or dimension will ISIS form an invasion force of millions or even thousands that will put Armed civilians on the front lines like it's the Revolutionary, or Civil War before we built standing armies and the most powerful military ever created in the galaxy.

The entire government and command structure of the U.S. Military would have to collapse.

And even if that did happen we're screwed. We're way too soft today. It's not like the old days when life was gritty, floors were dirt, cars were horses, getting heat meant chopping wood, ice didn't exist, a cold could kill you, and we couldn't function without our phones and a latte in the morning.

The average citizen has no training, no skills, no physical strength or stamina, most have no honor, and no understanding of any warfare or command structure. It'll just be a bunch of beer soaked idiots squeezing off rounds at every Sikh, or woman in a rain scarf and gunning down innocent people all over the streets. And militias and supremacist organizations looking to exploit the opportunity to sabotage us so that they can live out their fantasy of taking over.

Let's just say there was a front line like in the 1940's, sure some old or retired military will go, maybe law enforcement, but the armed citizens behind them who only know of war from movies will end up shooting them in the back. The best place for an armed citizenry is protecting their own homes. We have enough professionals to do the job. We're 8x's larger and more powerful than the next 8 countries COMBINED and luckily have 2 oceans as buffers.

If anyone wants to join the fight they can go to an Armed Forces recruitment center at any time. They're open 6 days a week. If you want to only protect our shores, National Guard and Coast Guard will be your huckleberry. Go forth and solder. No one needs a bunch of wannabes in military surplus running around the streets looking for something to shoot.

The other thing about "keeping us safe" is also kind of a fantasy. No President or person or law enforcement agency can predict crime like it's The Minority Report. I don't care how much communication the NSA siphons, you can't watch the world and predict thought.
If we could do that, we wouldn't have mass shootings every month. Any one of your neighbors could decide to unleash an assault on the street right this second, and there's nothing you can do and nothing you could have done to prevent it.

I can't name one terrorist attack that has been reported as being prevented, thanks to NSA snooping, or even because we took our shoes off at the airport.

More people are killed by domestic terrorists, and extremist from within our own citizenry every year, than killed by terrorist both at home and abroad. The real boogie man is living next door. We kill 35k of our own every year and keep another 2 million perpetually locked up for things like tickets and pot.

What we've given up, and the paranoia and suspicion with which we treat our own citizens, and the massive debt that we've incurred in the name of "freedom" is the victory. Osama Bin Laden said long before 9/11 that it doesn't take much to make us break ourselves and cripple our economy and influence around the world. A few carefully staged attacks, on TV so that the world sees it, will have us giving up our freedoms, infighting, and going into so much debt that we'll take ourselves down from inside.

And that's exactly what's happening. That's why it's called "terrorism". It's psychological. So that we'll be so scared that we see the boogie man under every bed. The icing on the cake? To make it a religious war so that we turn on 1.6 billion Muslims for the actions of a few hundred and make it so all of Islam has nowhere to turn except to Islamic extremism to survive. That's the entire goal and we're like dumb cows herding ourselves right into the plan. We're even turning on the U.N. Our allies. We're so paranoid and conspiracy driven that we we've turned on the U.N. that WE created because we now think everyone is out to get us.

2 Muslims kill 14 people in CA and 318 million people freak the hell out. Ban everything, and every one. Send the military every where.

But month after month an American kills 3-20 people in a doctor's office, or church, or movie theater or a school, and we just say "what a shame" and keep on trucking. "More guns!!!". And we're talking about something else by the end of the week.

We're so scared that we're literally running around in circles. In one breath our politicians are screaming about "Keeping us safe" and in the very next breath they willfully decide to keep allowing people on the terrorist watch list to continue being able to legally purchase unlimited amounts of weapons and ammo.

It's working.

Don't get me wrong, keep bombing the crap out of them until they're gone. We;re in it now. May as well finish it, whatever it takes. There's only 30k of them and now countries in the region are sending in ground forces. We will weed them out, and then it'll be on to the next war.

My advice for the next President: If you want people to stop attacking us, maybe we shouldn't be the first planes and ships into every fight thinking we can fix everything. Everything isn't our business, I don't care what company has mines, or factories or oil fields there. Other countries closer to the action need to start stepping up. We can't police the world.

Want to stop getting attacked? Stop bombing people and when we do, make sure we know what we're talking about.

And when our own politicians get it wrong and we make a mistake, we need to own up to it, not keep sending troops until it magically fixes itself. That thread never stops pulling.

As the WOPR said in the movie 'War Games', "The best way to win, is not to play".

Dude, why did you get me started? :)

[Fulcrum]

Totally disagree. In no world or dimension will ISIS form an invasion force of millions or even thousands that will put Armed civilians on the front lines like it's the Revolutionary, or Civil War before we built standing armies and the most powerful military ever created in the galaxy.

The thing is, though they may not bring an invasion force to our (we share coast lines so let's just assume North America rather than 2 individual countries) shores, they are using their religion to entice our disenfranchised youth over to their "cause". Look at what happened in Ottawa in 2014 when a lone wolf made it to within 100 ft of our former prime minister (2 days after 2 soldiers were run down in Quebec). To the best of my knowledge, in both cases the perpetrators were born and raised in Canada (the guys with strict gun laws where farmers have been vilified for owning rifles/shotguns).

And Harold, its fun to get you started.:cool:

[billbenson]

@ Harold - Fulcrum is right, Its fun to get you started :)

And I said its possible, not probable that war will come to our shores. I tend to doubt it, but we will certainly have more terrorist activity in the US. And there are multiple that the next president will need to ponder.

[Harold Mansfield]

The thing is, though they may not bring an invasion force to our (we share coast lines so let's just assume North America rather than 2 individual countries) shores, they are using their religion to entice our disenfranchised youth over to their "cause". Look at what happened in Ottawa in 2014 when a lone wolf made it to within 100 ft of our former prime minister (2 days after 2 soldiers were run down in Quebec). To the best of my knowledge, in both cases the perpetrators were born and raised in Canada (the guys with strict gun laws where farmers have been vilified for owning rifles/shotguns).

And Harold, its fun to get you started.:cool:

ISIS has just as much to do with Islam as the KKK has to do with Christianity. They're extremist. They're criminals. They're murderers. They're terrorist. They are NOT a reflection of Islam. It's all a big heist and about control. They pay their fighters in American money, use American products, and watch American entertainment.

They're not trying to build some utopic Muslim state. They're not feeding people. They're not organizing any kind of government. They're not protecting Muslim citizens. They're not even building Mosques. They're taking over territory, stealing all of the gold , resources including the banks and oil fields, and shaking down the citizens for protection payments, or they get killed.

They destroy religious buildings and artifacts, that is those that they don't sell for profit. If you could take the Ferengi from Star Trek and cross them with the brutality of Adolph Hitler, and religious delusions of Jim Jones that would be ISIS.

The $10k watch on the arm of their current leader, along with kidnapping and trafficking women for pleasure, that's the real game plan. They're stealing massive amounts of money. The rest is just to make people too scared to stop them and personal vendettas.

When you start seeing them like that...the way they really are, you'll stop giving them so much credit. Yes, they are dangerous, but they aren't on a some brutal quest for religious "purity". They're on a heist and all that religious purity, and "true word of Allah" crap is just the cover story that gets the low level guys all riled up to kill people and create frightening distractions, while the guys at the top are stockpiling stolen cash.

When we start closing in, the top guys are going to take their money and run just like any other organized crime organization. The top guys don't want to be martyrs. They want to be rich. Being a martyr is for the poor guys who are angry because they don't have anything and it's someone elses fault. Honestly, some of them have a point when it comes to American foreign affairs.

[Harold Mansfield]

Speaking of the Klan, they've been terrorizing Americans for 180 years. We didn't need to go 8k miles to find terrorist to fight. We have our own right here that exist with impunity.

[Freelancier]

Please don't turn this into a political discussion.
Of course it's a political discussion. The decision to allow anyone a concealed-carry permit was about politics at the state legislature level. There was more gain for those politicians to allow it than there was to make the licensing process more grueling.

Same thing is happening in Georgia right now: big push to allow anyone to openly carry a gun on college campuses. The whole "good guy with a gun" fantasy in action. What always struck me as ironic and sad is that most laws in Georgia like this are specifically written to exclude the legislature. You have to pass through heavy security to get in there. Why? To keep people with guns out. But college campuses and bars and churches? Nope. "It's too hard to keep guns out of there, so let's make sure everyone is armed." It's BS of the most hypocritical kind.

And that's politics in the US of A.

[billbenson]

Of course it's a political discussion. The decision to allow anyone a concealed-carry permit was about politics at the state legislature level. There was more gain for those politicians to allow it than there was to make the licensing process more grueling.

Same thing is happening in Georgia right now: big push to allow anyone to openly carry a gun on college campuses. The whole "good guy with a gun" fantasy in action. What always struck me as ironic and sad is that most laws in Georgia like this are specifically written to exclude the legislature. You have to pass through heavy security to get in there. Why? To keep people with guns out. But college campuses and bars and churches? Nope. "It's too hard to keep guns out of there, so let's make sure everyone is armed." It's BS of the most hypocritical kind.

And that's politics in the US of A.

By political I meant I didn't want this to turn into a gun rights discussion. That is where posts like this can turn ugly.

[FireFly]

I believe everyone who carries should have to attend a CCW class. I live in Arizona where it's not needed now, but I STILL took the class anyway. You learn quite a bit and it's under $100.

I think open carrying is extremely childish and just begging for attention. Unless of course your state only allows open carry.

I have been shooting for about 20 years now (man I feel old now) and I've shot everything from a .17hmr to full auto m16's. My EDC is a Glock 26 (9mm) with a galco leather IWB holster.