[twinklesweep]

Originally Posted by Mack184

This is about the same amount of classroom time and "test" time for someone to get their first driver's license. Does this mean that he or she is in a position to operate a car????????????

This was my question, and as far as this answer goes, I don't know. I come from a large farm family, and my parents insisted on months of practice time before we were allowed to take our driver's license test. I guess a few hours plus passing an exam would be enough if one "owned" the roads, but would it be enough in a crazy, stressful driving situation with lots of factors? I know someone who in spite of decades of driving experience got caught in what defensive driving instructors call a "collision trap" that also involved bad weather and poor visibility and was killed. The question is if carrying a concealed weapon--just having the permit and carrying it--is similar to carrying a driver's license--just having the license and carrying it. I don't know.

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

2. What are the differences between a course for an “inexperienced shooter” and one for an “experienced shooter”? Is the first course longer in classroom time than the second? What is the experienced shooter learning that the inexperienced shooter is not? And since what the experienced shooter is learning must be valuable, then why not simply have one course so that everyone prepared to use a concealed weapon learns the same things?

3. Why are “courses for women only taught by a female instructor”? Are there gender differences in the instruction or in the application of what is taught? If so, what are they?

Can anyone answer my other questions?

Originally Posted by buggyone

There were two other separate incidents of men with concealed weapon permits who were arrested after displaying their pistols in a threatening manner to someone for taking a parking space. These resulted in arrests and charges of Assault With A Deadly Weapon. I am sure the legal fees and fines (maybe jail time) were well worth the parking space.

A parking space?! Is this a joke, or at least an exaggeration? If it's not, then it really can be serious.

Originally Posted by gustavo

I haven't seen any houses burned down in my neighborhood lately, so maybe I should cancel my fire insurance.

Is there any solid info out there about how many homeowners don't carry insurance? Having a mortgage requires it, I think, but how many others say that with the odds so slim, why spend so much each year (especially those living on the edge who might have to choose between a homeowners insurance policy that they've never used and, say, badly needed medical care or prescription meds)? Florida is the lightning capital of the country, yet very few people (to my knowledge, anyway) have a lightning rod system.

Originally Posted by rubicon

Owning a gun is a personal choice. Yet I noticed during a review of the posts the same people who argue against gun ownership are the same ones that have argued that abortion is a personal choice.

Of course owning a gun is a personal choice. I don't get the impression that anyone is "arguing" against someone else owning a gun, since it is legally permitted. Instead they're saying that THEY don't wish to own a gun. I didn't notice a connection between these people and abortion being a personal choice, but remembering an unrelated thread I did notice a connection between being pro-concealed weapons and opposition to health care for all Americans.

Speaking of abortion (not to hijack the topic), it seems to me that there is a difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion," just as there is a difference between "pro-abortion" (must say that I have NEVER known anyone to be "pro-abortion" other than for oneself as a personal, legally permitted choice) and "pro-choice."

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Perhaps backgrounds checks should be necessary for pressure cooker purchasers since they can be used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Is this also a joke, or is it sarcasm?

Originally Posted by blueash

It speaks volumes about the ability of incredibly highly trained good guy with a gun, far more trained than anyone who needed a six hour course to get his carry license, to stop a bad guy with a gun.... The minimally trained 70 year old in a highly chaotic situation is not going to do nearly as well as the cops and soldiers.

This is the very concern that prompted my initial question about the required training seeming so little before people can not just carry but actually use a concealed weapon based on their own judgments stemming from the little training they've had. Should this be a concern, or is it a non-issue in light of the law allowing it?

Originally Posted by billethkid

A comment on the 5 or 6 or 8 hour class for weapons permits. There is an expectation that one will either have or as a result of the class seek training. The much more important aspect of the course is all about conveying an understanding of what it means to fire a gun in a public situation. What are the laws and how they apply to a shooter. It opens one's thinking about what happens to a bullet that leaves the gun....where does it go....what if you miss....what if you hit or kill somebody. It defines deadly force.....what constitutes a concealed weapon (especially for those who erroneously think it automatically means a gun!!!!).

There is a lot gained in that 8 hours and very understandable why the actual shooting is the least amount of time allocated. For these reasons I recommend even those who do not intend to get a permit or shoot a gun to attend. Then and ONLY then will you be able to understand what it is all about.

This makes sense. It also speaks worlds about how very, very serious (life-and-death serious!) this all is, not some casual thing about carrying a concealed weapon. I really hope that "parking spot incident" was a joke. We grew up as a hunting family (and it was for food, not sport), and although there were firearms in the house (all inherited from grandparents and earlier) and all us kids had to take a course in firearm safety, our hunting was ONLY with bow and arrow. There were personal family reasons for this, and though some might laugh at this, we were taught to quietly apologize to the animal for having killed it and thank it for providing us with food. Not quite the same thing, though, as a law permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon.

Originally Posted by OnTrack

I think only trouble can come from someone who starts drinking at noon, gets mad at anyone who passes them on a golf cart, fancies himself as John Wayne........and is carrying to boot.

I would like to think that this too is a joke. I'm still thinking of that parking spot and how it was handled, again assuming that wasn't a joke.

Originally Posted by Bill32

If you're a timid person by nature and uneasy around guns we understand, no problem with that. Most permit holders don't announce the fact that they're armed so you wouldn't know.

Do people feel there is a connection between being a "timid person by nature" and those who are "uneasy around guns," whatever their reasons? "Timid" people might take comfort in carrying a concealed weapon; maybe it would give them self-assurance or serve some other purpose. However, the word "most" in the next sentence about not openly saying that they're armed implies that there are some who do the opposite, and this could explain why some feel "uneasy around guns."


This is no easy subject, and as I say, I now have more questions than answers. But we are a nation of laws, so we must remember that (like abortion mentioned in an earlier posting) we are obliged to respect the laws, including this one.