[leenie24]

Originally Posted by looneycat

I too grew up in NYC where you had to be pretty oblivious to NOT realize that you were constantly walking amongst armed people. Since it was and is difficult to get a CCW in NYC, most people did not discuss or admit to concealed weapons as what they were doing was taking an illegal risk to protect themselves against possible attack!
I don't necessarily agree with that but I see no harm in having a ccw...I do, that doesn't mean I carry a weapon in the Villages...you have a driver's license, do you stay in your car?

I guess we just traveled in different circles. I am sure that is your reality but it wasn't mine. Like minded people seem to travel together. That being said you are entitled to your opinion.

[Heartnsoul]

FIRST DO NO HARM. THERE IS A PARADOX TO THAT STATEMENT. WHEN YOU KNOW THE FINAL OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE BAD (SUCH AS MOVIE THEATER SHOOTINGS, ETC...) THEN DOING NOTHING WILL CAUSE MORE HARM. (LIKE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH A TERRORIST!!)

GOOD LUCK TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING. FOR MYSELF ( A MOTHER) I CHOOSE TO PROTECT MY CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. NO ONE WILL HARM THEM AS LONG AS I'M ALIVE.

GOOD LUCK TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE THE PASSIVE CHOICE.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by looneycat

I too grew up in NYC where you had to be pretty oblivious to NOT realize that you were constantly walking amongst armed people. Since it was and is difficult to get a CCW in NYC, most people did not discuss or admit to concealed weapons as what they were doing was taking an illegal risk to protect themselves against possible attack!
I don't necessarily agree with that but I see no harm in having a ccw...I do, that doesn't mean I carry a weapon in the Villages...you have a driver's license, do you stay in your car?

I saw a report on TV that indicated a lot of NY'ers were getting gun permits via the mail from Florida since it is so easy to get on there.

[Heartnsoul]

Nyers have to come down here to get a large big gulp too!!!

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I saw a report on TV that indicated a lot of NY'ers were getting gun permits via the mail from Florida since it is so easy to get on there.

And isn't it comforting to know that no wife-beater, child molester, terrorist, sex offender, or other felon is going to be denied the right to buy a gun by some pesky background check?

Al Queda is advertising to it's members, buy your guns in the USA since there is no background check.

Florida also has the distinction of being a "right to kill" state by virtue of the stand your ground law. Is this a great country or what?

[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I saw a report on TV that indicated a lot of NY'ers were getting gun permits via the mail from Florida since it is so easy to get on there.

Can you explain your statement? Even if you have a FL out of state CCW permit you still cannot carry in NY.

[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by janmcn

And isn't it comforting to know that no wife-beater, child molester, terrorist, sex offender, or other felon is going to be denied the right to buy a gun by some pesky background check?

Al Queda is advertising to it's members, buy your guns in the USA since there is no background check.

Florida also has the distinction of being a "right to kill" state by virtue of the stand your ground law. Is this a great country or what?

Where did you read about Al Qaeda's advertisement? I don't really expect an answer and yes, this IS a great country.

There is a background check done when you buy a firearm from a dealer just not a gun show which is something I don't agree with. Background checks should be done whenever or where ever a firearm is purchased IMHO.

[DougB]

Yippie-Kai-yay

[billethkid]

everytime I see the phrase "need to carry in TV" it always reminds me of two things. One is it is a trick question. And secondly the person asking does not understand and most likely will not unsdrerstand or just won't undersatand the concept of concealed carry.

Does a police man need to carry a weapon in TV? By some the answer would be no. If that were the case should they remove their weapon when they are in TV? Or if they are assigned a patrol in TV do not take a weapon in the first place?

Non gun enthusiasts and especially anti gun advocates do not have the ability to understand. Doesn't mean they are wrong....they are just not able to, hence they tend to intellectualize the subject.

As presented many many times before, think of it as insurance. Some buy it, some don't. Some buy a lot and some a little. Some cover everything and others just need the basic coverages. There is no way to convince any one of them for the decision they made regarding whether to insure, how much to insure and where to insure. Based on some statistics for some incidents there is no need for insurance but folks still buy it.....JUST IN CASE.

JUST IN CASE......JUST IN CASE .....the very reason law enforcement carries a weapon regardless where they are......the very same reason some choose to carry a concealed weapon....If one cannot grasp or acknowledge that premise/concept.....all the jawboning is a waste of time.

It would do well for some to go take the Concelaed weapons course to do nothing more than gain an understanding of all that is taught about carrying a weapon.

I do like the one post above about the more dangerous residents being the ones behind the wheel here in TV....so very right and so much more potentially dangerous to us all than those with a CCWP.

Wait a minute.........OK now I am set!!

btk

[twinklesweep]

Originally Posted by villavillager

I just completed my concealed weapons course for the state of Florida. I looked into several different courses and finally decided upon Paul "Mac" McIntyre who runs The Right Training. It was an eight hour course for the inexperienced shooter. Over six hours in the classroom and about an hour at the range followed by a test back at the classroom. I learned a great deal. There are courses for the experienced and inexperienced. Courses for women only taught by a female instructor. Anyone you would be vaguely interested should check out the website The RightTraining.co

I was so impressed the the entire process I felt compelled to let others of the great course that was available to those who were interested.

Since there seems to be two “sides” in this thread, I suspect that I will not be able to get accurate answers to these questions—from either side—including from the recommended website. However, these are questions that I am left with, which are only in relation to the instructional program and based only on this OP, not any of the “debate” that follows:

1. Does a six-hour classroom course plus an hour on the range (presumably practicing shooting) followed by an exam qualify an “inexperienced shooter” to actually be in a position where he or she might need (or “feel the need”) to use a concealed weapon?

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?

[Mack184]

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

Since there seems to be two “sides” in this thread, I suspect that I will not be able to get accurate answers to these questions—from either side—including from the recommended website. However, these are questions that I am left with, which are only in relation to the instructional program and based only on this OP, not any of the “debate” that follows:

1. Does a six-hour classroom course plus an hour on the range (presumably practicing shooting) followed by an exam qualify an “inexperienced shooter” to actually be in a position where he or she might need (or “feel the need”) to use a concealed weapon?

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????????????

[blueash]

Originally Posted by In awe of TV

One poster wrote, "and if your in the theater and a shooting does occur you'd probably rather be sitting next to me than those who don't believe in carry." I would like to reply to that by saying in a very high stress situation like that - in a darkened theater - do you honestly think you would have been able to hit the Colorado shooter in a vulnerable place since he had on body armor? You only would have succeeded in drawing his fire to your area.

Not if he was dead. There is no body armor for the head.

yes, and keep in mind the OP did have one entire hour of training on the shooting range to get his permit. Note that all the cops and military in Boston fired all those shots and didn't manage to kill the younger brother. There is also the story told by the chief of police that they didn't kill the older brother either, that he was in fact run over by his sibling driving away. Either way, cops and soldiers miss a lot more than they hit. Good luck with your head shot in a darkened theater or on the square.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by blueash

yes, and keep in mind the OP did have one entire hour of training on the shooting range to get his permit. Note that all the cops and military in Boston fired all those shots and didn't manage to kill the younger brother. There is also the story told by the chief of police that they didn't kill the older brother either, that he was in fact run over by his sibling driving away. Either way, cops and soldiers miss a lot more than they hit. Good luck with your head shot in a darkened theater or on the square.

Thank you for being observent. That was the point I was trying to make. I think the Colorado shooter had a rifle. Anyone with a CCW would have a pistol and making a head shot with a pistol from a distance and in a darkened theater AND in a high stress (person shooting at you; people screaming; people running around) situation would be almost impossible.

Someone shooting back with a pistol in that situation would have a far more likely chance of hitting a bystander than the head shot on the bad guy.

[buggyone]

In the 3+ years I have been living in The Villages, there was only ONE incident of gun violence. That was a domestic shooting and BOTH were retired police officers. It did not leave their house.

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.

Does anyone else know of anymore gun violence incidents in The Villages where it would be necessary to tote a gun in The Villages?

[gustavo]

Originally Posted by janmcn

And isn't it comforting to know that no wife-beater, child molester, terrorist, sex offender, or other felon is going to be denied the right to buy a gun by some pesky background check?

Al Queda is advertising to it's members, buy your guns in the USA since there is no background check.

Florida also has the distinction of being a "right to kill" state by virtue of the stand your ground law. Is this a great country or what?

Yes it is!!!