(12-31-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-31-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-31-2019 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-31-2019 02:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...
If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.
This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.
So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?
Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.
I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.
The connection is that the current level of training required for an LTC is not sufficient to actually train someone on how to properly use a firearm, and definitely not enough to cause the outcome we saw here. You’re required to take an online course and a short, less than half a day, range test (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm). That will not prepare someone with little to no experience how to react in a deadly situation and not cause more damage.
Funny, the requirement per the law is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency' to the instructor. lad, the CCL isnt a 'training to use the gun' thingy -- it is a 'demonstrating proficiency' and a 'know the law' thingy. You kind of gloss that over there.
I guess to you, demonstrating proficiency in a handgun is not good enough, nor is knowing the law good enough.
Quote:The level of proficiency demonstrated by the man who stopped the shooter made it pretty clear he had significant training and was prepared to act.
No doubt he was trained and prepared to act. But funnily, you dismiss a CCL out of hand with only regards to a link.
Have you seen the test? Do you know what it is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency'? Serious questions here lad, my guess is zero to both counts.
No offense lad, the CCL *shows* you are trained in proficiency and knowledge of the use and the ramifications of such use. You are correct it is not training --- it is a test to note whether you are trained sufficiently to be allowed to do the act.
You pooh-poohing the CCL on a blind basis really doesnt do the licensure justice.
Quote:People are trying to use this as an example of how a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and while true on the surface, there is more to it. This is most definitely an example of why people who own guns and are properly trained and experienced in their use should be allowed to continue to own them for self defense.
And an example to note what exactly a CCL denotes, perhaps.
So defensive, Tanq.
Not poo-pooing anything, really. I’m simply stating that this person had significant training above the requirements, and that is likely what allowed him to respond how he did.
Do you think all LTC holders would have been able to hit a moving target some 30 to 50 ft away with such ease?
The guy made a fantastic head shot --- at distance. No doubt about it. But, that isnt the point.
And no, not all CCL holders would be able to do that. But that isnt the point either.
The point is that there were multiples of people able and ready to respond. Not with the super duper level that you may think is the level. But on that, we will most likely disagree.
What should change in the 'level of proficiency' from the current CCL to make acceptable to you then? But loaded question, this requires you to denote what the sufficient level of sufficiency is, as opposed to a link, and the paraphrase 'just an hour or two at the range'.
I guess in lad world only when you can put a bullet side-temple in a laterally moving person 30-50 ft away can you have a gun? Let alone carry it? That is what you are seemingly advocating by jumping up and down and flapping your wings about the skill level of the baddie dropper. If so, jsut come out and say it --- if not and you dont think the CCL is enough, just say that. When you state that the CCL isnt enough, then please do regale us about *your* experience with the CCL process, and very specifically why that isnt good enough for lad-world.
I guess in lad-world, it really smarts that a good guy drops a baddie. And the fallback is 'well this guy was super duper prepared'. Apparently you want uber super duper extra mustard on top training so only people who can make that head shot can carry?
I mentioned that CCLs had to have decent amounts of proficiency just to have the CCL. And from the accounts that I read, the other 4 people there with drawn weapons had such CCLs.
You respond with a post that makes it sound like the CCL is something you apply for from a cereal box ad. All apparently without knowing anything about the test, nor anything about the range demonstration of proficiency. A level of proficiency that is clearly a mark above 'gee Mabel I bought me a gun, let me go plink some stuff...'.
But notwithstanding what the CCL denotes, you seemingly put it out there as 'not good enough'. Funny that.