The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 15, 2012, 11:58 PM   #51
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
DNS, the reason I ask is that I was trying to ascertain what kind of training, number of hours, etc, quality of training you would suggest if the state required training were not enough. This is from the handbook and doesn't cover any specifics. Do you think the state should be more specific in what is required? I can't imagine talking to students for three days and spending a minimum of four hours on the range and not covering what you're saying they should cover, but maybe they're not. Maybe it needs to be spelled out?

Quote:
VI. FIREARMS TRAINING
a. An applicant for a Class “G” Statewide Firearm License
must have a minimum of twenty-eight (28) hours of range and
classroom training taught and administered by a Class “K”
Firearms Instructor.
Section 493.6105(6), F.S.
b. Class “G” licensees must obtain four (4) hours of
firearms range recertification training during each year of the 2-
year licensure period. If the four (4) hours annual training is not
completed each year of the 2-year licensure period, the full initial
training program (twenty-eight (28) hours) is required for
renewal. This training must be taught by a Class “K” Firearms
Instructor. Renewal of the Class “G” license will be denied if the
licensee has failed to obtain the required training.
Example: A licensee who is issued his Class “G” license
on June 1, 2006 which expires May 31, 2008 must receive four
(4) hours of firearms recertification training between June 1,
2006 and May 31, 2007 and four (4) hours between June 1, 2007
and May 31, 2008.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FOR...00092_0209.pdf

I can't imagine spending 4 hours on the range and not covering what you're suggesting. But I take it you have more of an issue with the quality of the training and not the hours required?

IMO, police and military have a fairly decent training program, and yet these guys still have accidents. Are you suggesting higher quality training than that?

Personally, I'm not satisfied with training unless I take a course once a year and shoot an IPSC match at least once a month. (Need to get back to that, actually, instead of working all the time...) But I don't think everyone needs to do that to be safe. I don't think it needs to be required. And I think there are people who could have five times that much training and still cause an accident.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 07:56 AM   #52
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
peetzakilla
Senior Member


Trying to say it wasn't an accident is trying to split hairs that don't even exist, IMO.

It doesn't matter how many ways we can parse it into various forms of negligence. It was STILL an accident.

If it wasn't intentional, it WAS an accident.

I don't get this apparent concept that accidents and negligence are mutually exclusive.

The only requirement for an accident is that it was unintentional. The "why" or "how" has no bearing.

If its not intentional, it IS an accident.

I am with you on this one.

Why does every one have to jump on the use of the word "accident"?

An "accident" is caused by human negligence.
The word "accident" is used to describe the out come of the negligence.

A person has a negligent discharge and accidentally shoots the Television.

The Television part of the equation is the accident, the discharge part is the negligence .
Rusty35 is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 09:38 AM   #53
Nordeste
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2011
Location: Asturias, Spain
Posts: 328
Quote:
If mandatory training really is important, including optional firearms safety classes during high school might be worth a try. That way when the student becomes old enough to purchase a firearm he will already of had training.
I second this. If kids already get information about driving safety and regulations at school, it wouldn't be a bad idea that they get the same about firearms, but you'll have to deal with anti-gun parents, then.


IMHO, some training is needed to handle firearms and it makes sense to make it mandatory.
Nordeste is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 09:50 AM   #54
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 651
Semantics can lead to some silly interpretations. One person's definition of a word may vary from another. To run a thread on semantics is silly? Or should I say stupid? Or should I say pointless? Or should I say a waste of time? Or should I say...
JimPage is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 10:25 AM   #55
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
I second this. If kids already get information about driving safety and regulations at school, it wouldn't be a bad idea that they get the same about firearms, but you'll have to deal with anti-gun parents, then.


IMHO, some training is needed to handle firearms and it makes sense to make it mandatory.
Students are not required to take Driver's Ed in school, nor do I think firearms safety training should be mandatory. If you're going to go that route, there are a lot of things that kill a lot more kids every year than firearms, so the mandatory training time would be better spent there (if it were to be spent at all, which I don't agree with).
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 11:18 AM   #56
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 471
Quote:
Semantics can lead to some silly interpretations. One person's definition of a word may vary from another. To run a thread on semantics is silly? Or should I say stupid? Or should I say pointless? Or should I say a waste of time? Or should I say...
Discussing, or even arguing about the meaning of words and what they communicate related to firearms is certainly as valuable as many other discussions here. Words are important and being aware of how they are perceived is valuable. This discussion is a good example of this. I don't see "accident" as a word that minimizes responsibility for negligence. Many others clearly do. Knowing this gives me information to help me communicate more effectively. What's wrong with that?

What I find silly and pointless are posts that presume to let us know how stupid we are for discussing such nonsense. That is a real waste of time.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 11:27 AM   #57
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 471
ON topic I think a mandatory basic firearms safety course before carrying a weapon is reasonable. I would be opposed to making it a part of any public school curriculum.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 11:43 AM   #58
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
IMHO, some training is needed to handle firearms and it makes sense to make it mandatory.
Who do you want to set the standards for mandatory training? Blomberg?
maybe the mayor of Chicago?

Which others of our Bill of Rights do you want mandatory for? 1st, 4th or 5th.

Where in the constitution does it require mandatory training for any of our rights.

Many use the analogy of driving. We require driver training and test to get a operator's license. If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 11:51 AM   #59
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
...Many use the analogy of driving. We require driver training and test to get a operator's license. If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.
So training has no value? Would there be fewer accidents on the road without driver training and licensing?
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:02 PM   #60
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
fiddletown
Staff

So training has no value? Would there be fewer accidents on the road without driver training and licensing?
Training has lots of value.

I got my DL when training wasn't mandatory, over 40 years of driving.

Only accident I have been in was when a teen who had been through a drivers Ed program ran a stop sign.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:13 PM   #61
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty35
...Only accident I have been in was when a teen who had been through a drivers Ed program ran a stop sign.
And one anecdote is not data.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:29 PM   #62
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
fiddletown
Staff

And one anecdote is not data.
I agree,
there have been lots of teenagers who had drivers training who did not run over me.


Is drivers training needed to teach a new driver not to run a stop sign?
Rusty35 is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:30 PM   #63
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
So training has no value? Would there be fewer accidents on the road without driver training and licensing?
No where in my post, on this topic or any other topic have I said training has no value.

I'm all for training, training is never ending.

But I'm against mandatory training. Firearm safety and firearms training is not the same thing.

Firearm safety is nothing more then following the four basic rules of firearm safety. Following those rules will eliminate any accidents causing injury or property damage. They apply weather you know how to shoot or not.

Firearm training is a different subject all together. In firearms training you take the basic safety rules an incorporate them in the firearm training that allows you to deploy your firearm be it SD, competition, hunting, etc etc.

Basically firearm safety (if employed) keeps you from having the accident. Firearm training teaches you to shoot.

But, my point is, "mandatory" training opens up a Pandora's box based on who sets the standards and their goal. Are they interested in training or are they interested in control?

I'm afraid of the latter.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:34 PM   #64
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,583
Quote:
This is from the handbook and doesn't cover any specifics. Do you think the state should be more specific in what is required? I can't imagine talking to students for three days and spending a minimum of four hours on the range and not covering what you're saying they should cover, but maybe they're not. Maybe it needs to be spelled out?
LOL, You can't imagine it not being covered, but in the security officer handbook there is absolutely no mention of safety training anywhere. The word 'safety' and in its root form, "safe," only appears once in the book in the cover letter from the commissioner. So there is apparently no state requirement for gun safety/weapons handling stipulated by the state for security officer training and licensing.

More specific? Given that the topic isn't covered by the handbook and isn't a stipulated requirement, then sure, I would think gun safety training requirement should be stipulated. I stil don't see anything to suggest that gun safety isn't really covered beyond going over the four rules briefly and then making sure folks don't screw up at the range.

But Wayne, you are in Florida, right? You have a carry permit? How extensive was your gun safety training in your concealed carry course. What did you cover beyond the four safety rules? Were you made aware of the additional and often extensive damage that is produced by expanding gasses in contact shots? Did you cover ballistic dangers relative to distance, trajectory, and environmental conditions? Did you cover the dangers associated with the moving parts on a firearm during its operation? Did you come away with a clear understanding of what does and does not constitute a safe backstop? How much time did you spend on assessing the risks of over penetration of common materials such as vehicles, drywall, and windows? How much time did you spend on overpenetration of people risks? Did you go over misfires and hangfires and what you should do should a misfire occur and how to remain safe in case it turns out to be a hangfire? How much time did you spend on auditory damage?

There are lots of ways in which firearms can be involved in the harming of people, but you probably didn't get any of that in what little gun safety instruction you received. You likely received nothing more than what was necessary to get you through the class and some cursory warnings about keeping guns locked properly at home. If somebody asked about auditory damage, the instructor probably told that person that the report of the firearm would be very loud, possibly damaging.

Saying that folks who have being through a CCW course or FL security guard licensing are trained in gun safety is about like saying my daughters are trained in fire safety because they learned in first grade to stay below the smoke in a burning building, to touch closed doors before opening them to se if they are hot or not, and to stop, drop, and roll should they happen to catch fire. They were even taking outside to practice stop, drop, and roll. What we are talking about isn't training, but minimalist exposure to limited safety guidelines.

Zambrana probably received about as much gun safety instruction as most people. Depending on how recently he received it, he might have been able to cite the 4 safety rules from memory. Where there are proficiency tests in many states for marksmanship, but are there any for gun safety beyond a multiple choice quiz?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:41 PM   #65
kinggabby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 473
Reminds me of a video I tried but failed to watch last night. A video titled On Target by Mark Duncan . He starts off talking about the 4 rules of safety but then he demonstrates something completely different. I don't know if the rest of the video was any good. But I could not stomach him passing a hand gun to people with his finger on the trigger or with action closed.
kinggabby is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:44 PM   #66
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,088
Accidents are most often caused by negligence. If your negligence causes damage to anything you should be held accountable.
If you want to reduce the chance of your negligence causing an accident get training.

I beleve the four rules of safety should tought in public schools.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 12:49 PM   #67
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty35
Is drivers training needed to teach a new driver not to run a stop sign?
Someone had to teach all of us that. It's not something we were born knowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
...No where in my post, on this topic or any other topic have I said training has no value...
Your statement was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
...If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.
That statement has no real meaning, which is why I asked the rhetorical questions.

None of us were born knowing how to drive, and none of us were born knowing how to use and handle guns safely. We all had to learn to do both somewhere, somehow from someone. Mostly we've had multiple teachers in multiple places all over time. And since there continue to be automobile collisions and unintentional discharges of firearms, some have learned those lessons better than others.

And mandatory training is a different, and political, issue.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 01:03 PM   #68
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
Your statement was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
...If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.

That statement has no real meaning, which is why I asked the rhetorical questions.
I agree, the statement was poorly worded. The point I was trying to make was "training" will not prevent accidents. The only thing that will is the individual following the 4 basic principals.

If you question anyone who has an "accidental discharge" you'll probably find out they knew the 4 basic rules, but upon investigation, if every incident they violated at least one.

I've seen people who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside but were perfectly safe with a firearm because they knew and followed the 4 basic rules.

I've seen people with mandantory training (cops and soldiers come to mind) screw up because the failed to follow the "four".

As for training per se, I've been shooting and teaching people to shoot a long time, I've been trained by the best shooters in the world (AMU) yet I still seek training, and will continue to seek training as long as I'm phyical fit enough to pull the trigger.

But, if I loosen up on one of the "four" I'm gonna screw up.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 02:30 PM   #69
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Sometimes people with less training can be safer than people with more training. ("Less" and "more" being non deterministic relative terms)

Sometimes, training leads to confidence (arrogant confidence) that should not be, which leads to the attitude that certain rules don't apply "because I'm trained".

The untrained may be safer because they fear the results and are careful.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; February 16, 2012 at 02:35 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 03:07 PM   #70
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
Sometimes people with less training can be safer than people with more training. ("Less" and "more" being non deterministic relative terms)

Sometimes, training leads to confidence (arrogant confidence) that should not be, which leads to the attitude that certain rules don't apply "because I'm trained".

The untrained may be safer because they fear the results and are careful.
I'm not sure that's the best or most accurate conclusion to draw. It's also the case that some people learn more quickly and thoroughly than others. And some people are better at internalizing lessons and integrating what they learn into their usual activities.

Part of the challenge for those of us who teach people is to find ways to more effectively instill both the knowledge and the inclination to apply that knowledge. It can be one thing to know the rules and another to consistently act accordingly.

So when we teach our Basic Handgun classes, we have students do a lot of "hands-on" exercises with one-on-one instructor supervision. In that way students not only learn the various physical skills involved in handling, loading, unloading and firing guns, but are also continually reminded to do so while observing the safety rules. Our hope is that this helps develop the habit of always doing things properly and safely.

Training on a hot range also helps reinforce the concept that safety applies all the time. And that's particularly important for those who go about their normal business while wearing loaded guns in public. But here it seems that Mr. Zambrana allowed himself to forget that safety applies even in a church closet.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 03:27 PM   #71
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I wasn't intending it to be a generalized conclusion. It is true "sometimes". I meant it as a counter to the argument that "training" somehow AUTOMATICALLY makes you safer.

Mostly, training is better than not training. But, some people are cocky and think that being trained makes them above the rules or it can make them lax. The infamous "DEA" video or the recent SEAL who shot himself.... Well trained.... Cocky and prone to bad decisions. The training MAY have made them worse. At least untrained they may have maintained a healthy fear. Maybe not, but sometimes.

I wouldn't tell somebody "Nah! Don't get training! You're safer without it!" but it certainly can be the case with some people.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 03:37 PM   #72
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
...But, some people are cocky and think that being trained makes them above the rules or it can make them lax....
And some people are cocky and think they know it all without training, or that they've gotten adequately trained watching someone on YouTube. Cocky, foolish, delusional, etc., all come in a variety of flavors.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 05:30 PM   #73
Single Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2010
Location: N.C.
Posts: 1,522
A solemn reminder indeed; pretty much every rule of gun safety obviously violated here. One moment of carelessness, a lifetime of how-could-I-be-so-bloody-stupid regret.
__________________
Seen on a bumper sticker: "Exercise. Eat right. Take vitamins. Die anyway."
Single Six is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 06:23 PM   #74
Cascade1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Dutchess County, NY
Posts: 450
I feel about "accidental" shootings like I do about hunting "accidents". I think anyone carrying a firearm, whether hunting or just carrying, has to be ready to take FULL responsibility for his firearm.

I believe that if an innocent person is injured unintentionally by a bullet discharged by your firearm, whether in your possession or voluntarily handed to another person needs to be prosocuted. OK, it was an accident but there needs to be serious legal repercussions. As I've posted before in relation to hunting accidents I'll say with relation to any negligent discharge that causes an innocents injury: If a gun owner is not confident that he can handle a firearm without unintentionally injuring another, don't handle a gun.

To put it another way, why should it matter if someone meant to shoot an innocent person or did it accidentally? The damage was done and that person needs to be punished. Should the punishment be the same, I don't believe so but "not charged" or a slap on the wrist should not be result either.


What I believe is that the requirement for possessing and carrying a firearm in this country by an adult citizen should be that the citizen must understand the dangers and responsibilities of carrying and the consequences of not using proper caution and prudence.

Last edited by Cascade1911; February 17, 2012 at 07:47 AM.
Cascade1911 is offline  
Old February 16, 2012, 06:41 PM   #75
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
Cascade1911
Senior Member

I feel about "accidental" shootings like I do about hunting "accidents". I think anyone carrying a firearm, whether hunting or just carrying, has to be ready to take FULL responsibility for his firearm.

I believe that if an innocent person is injured unintentionally by a bullet discharged by your firearm, whether in your possession or voluntarily handed to another person needs to be persecuted. OK, it was an accident but there needs to be serious legal repercussions. As I've posted before in relation to hunting accidents I'll say with relation to any negligent discharge that causes an innocents injury: If a gun owner is not confident that he can handle a firearm without unintentionally injuring another, don't handle a gun.

To put it another way, why should it matter if someone meant to shoot an innocent person or did it accidentally? The damage was done and that person needs to be punished. Should the punishment be the same, I don't believe so but "not charged" or a slap on the wrist should not be result either.


What I believe is that the requirement for possessing and carrying a firearm in this country by an adult citizen should be that the citizen must understand the dangers and responsibilities of carrying and the consequences of not using proper caution and prudence.
Not at all sure persecution is called for.
Rusty35 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15207 seconds with 7 queries