(12-31-2019 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-31-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-31-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-31-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-31-2019 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: 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.
In my world it smarts when a good guy drops a baddy?
What the **** is wrong with you?
Perhaps try one of the easier ones, like: What should change in the 'level of proficiency' from the current CCL to make acceptable to you then?
You first made a statement of 'people need training to do church security'.
Then, when it was noted the plethora of firearms there and that many (most, maybe all) of them there had a CCL level, and the proficiency level of holding that.
In response, you then decided to cast a fairly negative, somewhat comic-bookish view on CCL 'training'.
When it was then countered that a CCL isnt training, it is a test of proficiency, you then went into some sermon about 'not all CCL holders can shoot the eye of a gnat with a derringer at 200 meters' thingy, that thingy not even related to the proficiency
of the CCL, but instead to the guy that dropped the baddie.
Then I asked you what experience you have had with a CCL, and what level you thought needed to carry. That is, your experience above and beyond your comic-bookish characterization of it and the link to the state page for it.
You then respond then once again with a fing non sequitor.
Quote:Do you think all LTC holders would have been able to hit a moving target some 30 to 50 ft away with such ease?
Honestly, I could care less about whether the good guy can shoot a moving gnat's eye out at 200 yds. That isnt the point as to what happened. The point is that at least two very proficient people responded, and from the video another four or five sufficiently proficient people did as well.
But all you seemingly harp on is the exceptionality of the bad guy dropper. And no doubt, his shot was a very good one. I still fail to see the connection between that and the level of proficiency of a CCL required in Texas, for all your wing flapping.
I take it you are disappointed with the results of your 'in depth'(?) review of CCL proficiency all the while ostensibly to set a bar at the level of 'you have to drop a guy from 30 feet with head shot' stance that you are seemingly directed at.
The lesson that I learn from the incident is having a plan, and having CCL, and having a proficiency test for that is a good thing --- for all 6-8 involved.
My take on your comments is pooh poohing everything about the response *except* for the absolutely stellar methodology of the baddie dropper. I dont understand why the fixation solely on the baddie dropper and his very good skill set, and the apparent nonplussed at best, disparaging at worst, attitude towards Texas CCL proficiency and the actual application at the church.
My view is 7 people with CCL proficiency means a baddie dropped -- as opposed to your (apparent?) point of view of 'this is proof positive you absolutely must have superman skill sets to carry, or possibly own, a handgun.'
/
Mass shootings/gun control
