From a securityinfowatch.com interview with University of Central Florida Police Chief Richard Beary:
To get a concealed weapons permit in the State of Florida, all you have to do is go to any gun show or go to a class that may last 45 minutes and you get a permit. You don’t even have to pull the trigger of a gun, you don’t have to fire a round or demonstrate proficiency and then there is never a recertification. As long as you keep paying, you could actually go blind and still have your concealed weapons permit. It’s a disgrace and the biggest problem is . . .
then when [activist] groups go before our legislature because they want campus carry, they go in and say, ‘Anyone with a concealed weapons permit has been trained.’ They have not been trained, that’s not even familiarization. Forty-five minutes with a gun is not training, but these people come out of these classes and they think they have this skill that they don’t have . . .
One of the battles I have with NRA is they say the police chiefs are just trying to hype this. Take a look around. Look at what happened in Texas last week. A guy got shot and killed because instead of calling police he grabbed his gun and challenged a guy who was armed, who disarmed him and killed him.
The other thing that worries me is because people are so afraid of the hype and now we’re putting a gun in their hand and not training them, I just don’t see where it’s going to have a good outcome. What’s bothersome for me is that our elected officials won’t even talk to us.
He’s holding up a picture of an MP5? Can those be carried on campus? If that’s the case, I’m going to enroll.
I am an alumnus of UCF. This guy is why I don’t donate money or support that school in any way. I told the alumni association to take a long walk off a short pier a long time ago.
UCF alumnus also. It is astounding how the “safe-space/trigger-phrases” crowd has transformed that place. Sad, really.
When I was a student there, the campus police (aka. rent-a-cops) were considered bullies with a badge. I see that has not changed.
When seconds counted, the UCF po-po’s were 45 minutes away… and they were inside the freaking campus!
Their lack of assistance is partly the reason I got my CCW back in 1990, so at least theres that. 😀
“You don’t even have to pull the trigger of a gun, you don’t have to fire a round or demonstrate proficiency…”
That is factually wrong. Both the NRA, and the State of Florida have stated any instructor that certifies a student for a CWP class that doesn’t involve firing a live round, will have their certifications revoked, and will not allow their students to receive their permits.
We had the whole hub bub of using airsoft and blanks for the CWP class, and it was quite clear that they are unacceptable.
I don’t know what Florida’s minimum training requirement is, but I know NRA courses are permitted as proof of training. Even the NRA’s most basic “First Steps” course requires trigger time and it is much longer than 45 minutes.
While you don’t actually need to score any hits on target to qualify, you are required to show you can put rounds safely down range and operate your firearm. I can’t remember how many rounds you have to pop off though. And while this certainly cannot be counted as “training” it is a much longer process than 45 minutes.
One round, into a steel catch, from a 22LR revolver in the back of a pawn shop.
Before I knew that there was more to training, and that there is more to learn, I wanted a permit because I was in a bad area, and knew I wouldn’t be able leave that area for a while.
In the end, it worked out, I got my permit, I’ve taken more training, I do some light competition, but I think back at all the other people in that class, and have to trust that they have at least as much knowledge to not be stupid.
Would you trust the people who came to the class more than the guy who carries illegally? Not a trick question.
Not a blanket trust, but some are higher on the trust list than someone carrying a gun for illegal purposes, but not by much.
You’d have to be there in person to gauge it. Two people threw their hands up in disgust when they were told about the extra background check and the need for clean records. One thought that it was a firearms ownership class and that he needed it to be able to purchase a weapon, and three more needed to be told not to muzzle sweep the others in the classroom. So yeah, different levels of trust.
When I took the Florida class it was a 4 hour class. It covered gun safety, and applicable firearm laws in the state of Florida. Followed by a short 5 round range session to prove that we can safely handle a gun.
I’ve also taken the Texas CHP class which was 10 hours when I took it (they reduced it to 4 years a couple of years after I took it), and the Nevada concealed carry class which was about 9 hours. Despite being longer I don’t think there was much more applicable to actually carrying beyond what the Florida 4 hour class taught me.
Now I will say the Texas qualification was the hardest of the shooting portions of the three. But I don’t believe the CWP classes should be about shooting, the law is important as many people don’t know exactly what it says.
I will say I love instructors that go beyond the minimum. I have a friend that goes way beyond that, and not into useless stuff like gun cleaning that Nevada does. His class is about 5 hours long and covers the basics of a defensive mindset, and the basics on how to carry your gun.
The trigger part of the Texas was easy. I am only an adequate shooter and I only put one into the 9 ring. One pt short of perfect score. I took the old 10 hour course. That was the hard part. (staying awake) 😉
I don’t care what training the State of Florida imposes on prospective CWP candidates, as the Second Amendment doesn’t say a damm thing about trigger time.
In addition, and I just checked to make sure, the Second Amendment makes no mention of any training requirement (the “well regulated militia” being a reason for the amendment, not a requirement), nor does it include any intelligence test or any other provisos.
My Daughter took the CWP Class (including live fire in a special balistic trailer) at the Panama City Gun Show. She then passed my Q &A! He is not well informed of the facts but still pushes the anti gun agenda for his little rice bowl. No question his speech is what his employer desires. We need to public funding for Instutions that arbitrarily restrict Rights.
If I’m reading this right, this guy doesn’t oppose “campus carry”, he opposes any “non-LEO carry” whatsoever. Have I got him right?
Ahh yes…the “Training” boogey man rears it’s ugly head again. Your hear this scream by the ant-gunners “People need training or they’ll be a bloodbath” ANY time people want to get back their gun rights.
Frist off…According to a CDC reporthttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf page 57 there were 33,636 firearm deaths in 2013 in the United States.
21,175 were suicides. A ton of training in “Gun Safety” would not prevent any of those. So right of the bat, having all gun owners being “highly trained” will do nothing to prevent the majority of gun deaths. Killing yourself has nothing to do with accurate shooting or safety as by definition if you are going to kill yourself you aren’t concerned about safety.
11,208 deaths were homicide. Again, people murdering other people isn’t a result of not being accurate with a gun or being safe with one. By definition murderers want to be dangerous with their weapons not safe. Also, by definition criminals ignore laws so having laws limiting gun ownership to those who were “highly trained” would have no affect on these deaths as criminals would just ignore those laws.
467 were legal intervention/war(ie self defense) so those people obviously were accurate with their weapons and safely employed them to protect themselves.
281 were undetermined.
The final 505 were accidental. Now these are really the ONLY ones where safety training, etc might have saved some lives. But I would argue that many of these deaths happened to people who went through the training and still ignored the rules(just like police who are supposed to be so highly trained yet shoot themselves cleaning their guns, or hunters who went through hunter’s safety course, etc). And I would also argue that many of these people even if required to go through rigorous training would still ignore the rules or just be human and make mistakes. So let’s be generous and say half of these people could have been saved through better training. That would mean that implementing very tough laws putting all gun owners through rigorous courses, etc ensuring they were “highly trained” would cut the gun deaths in this country by .0074%. A number so small as to be statistically insignificant.
I would venture to guess there are more unjustified shootings by HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS than that every year.
Look no further than the recent post on this site about the LEO who sued GLOCK when he left a loaded gun in the hands of his child. Training cannot prevent stupidity.
That’s true. But 9 years of Gibb Slaps should cure it. Just ask DiNozzo.
“I would venture to guess there are more unjustified shootings by HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS than that every year.”
The leading cause of death of the mentally ill is the police.
I’m legitimately curious as to how you arrived at .0074%. 505 of 33636 deaths is 1.5%, which is still a small number, but obviously not .0074%, or even .74% (which is the mistake I thought you made). Perhaps you mean .0074% of deaths in total, not just gun deaths?
That being said, the point is still valid, just your stance can be challenged based on a simple mathematical error.
505 accidental deaths, then later he says, “So let’s be generous and say half of these people could have been saved through better training. ”
252/33,636=.0075 so close enough.
And I agree with the entire conversation.
Jackob, I know you are well-intention-ed, but you are playing their game, instead of simply citing the Second Amendment.
The argument goes that simply citing the Second Amendment will not reach and convince the proverbial “fence sitters.” Supposedly, logic and facts CAN reach them.
Never hurts to try…
The fence sitters play no role in the firearms/Second Amendment issues. The combatants are in the arena. The fence sitters don’t even come to watch. The fence sitters don’t listen to either side. They don’t care. They have other issues they care about. Or none.
A lot of us 2A folks wishfully project our logical thoughts and consideration on the rest of the population, for naught.
I wonder how many suicides where no note is left are ruled accidents.
I wouldn’t put it past officials to deliberately skew as many suicides into accidents as they can.
My wife had never fired a gun in her life until a few weeks ago. I’ve spent maybe 15 minutes in gun safety with her. She can easily shoot targets at 10-15 yards filling a 1/2 scale human size target full of lead with center mass hits. Guns are not that difficult. Training is good, but I am confident my wife could get the job done if needed after only one range trip.
Bleary is a moron. The blood in the streets meme needs to die already! It hasn’t happened, it won’t happen. I’m sure he wishes he had a may issue permitting system so he could deny everyone their rights, because statist.
Agree 100%
Shooting a gun isn’t rocket science.
Most defensive shootings are within 10 feet and last a few rounds.
As Mr. Spock once said in Star Trek (I forget which episode), logic dictates that if armed citizens were as bloodthirsty and dangerous as the anti-gunners say, there would be no anti-gunners left by now.
Sixpack70 for the win!
It takes all of 1 minute to show a trainee how to operate a firearm. Then it takes the trainee all of 3 minutes of practice to master operation of that firearm. Finally, it takes about 10 minutes of target practice to shoot 60 times and confirm that the bullets actually go where you point the muzzle of your firearm. Saying it another way, it takes all of 10 minutes to realize that you can point and shoot a firearm just as accurately as you can point your finger at someone.
It really is NOT rocket science. An average person really CAN “get it” in 15 minutes.
So a BG took away someone’s gun and used it to kill them.
This is why we need to disarm the police, so a BG can’t take their firearm and kill them with it.
This happened last week, I think perhaps more training for the PD is in order
http://www.wftv.com/news/local/officers-accidental-weapon-discharge-endangers-hundreds-of-ucf-students/244724423
Perhaps some free speech training is needed here, because this guy is a moonbat.
On the one hand, they argue that we shouldn’t have guns because they’re oh so complicated and difficult to use that only highly trained professionals should have access to them.
On the other hand, they argue that we shouldn’t have guns because they’re oh so simple and easy to use that even toddlers can manage to kill someone with them.
The nightmare scenarios of this man’s morbid fantasies simply haven’t been born out by the many years experience of states with campus carry, just like blood in the street predictions of concealed carry never materialized. He needs either to admit that he just doesn’t want others infringing on his special authority to carry, else do the basic research and learn that his stance is unfounded
What’s bothersome for me is that our elected officials won’t even talk to us.
Why don’t all of us have elected officials like that?
Governor, state House and Senate are all Republican here in Florida. Good times. Elections indeed do have consequences.
Good times? Take a look at how free other states are. We can’t even get licensed open carry through the Republicans or campus carry.
I appreciate what we have. Someone is always prettier, richer, smarter…
And no Charlie Crist!! Even better
Imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth had Central Florida Police Chief Richard Beary said the following …
Why do Progressives demand training in order to exercise some rights and not others? Every right, if misused, can cause the prompt death of an innocent bystander.
If his college is anything like the one in my town, the school’s administration have him on a short leash. His statement might as well have been drafted by one of the administrators. He is there to make sure the school is perceived to be safe, so wealthy parents will continue to send kids and donations to the school.
More kids need to be exposed to good safe gun courses, thats where it all started for most of us.
And this chief sounds like he’s got a jersy attitude.
Makes me want to pick up stakes and head to NW Texas.
It sounds to me like he’s just ticked off that someone out-shot his officers at the range and then made the claim that they had 45 minutes of prior training with no rounds fired.
So how come the urban University of Utah (30,000 students), Utah State University (27,000 students) and Utah Valley University (32,000 students) have not had any problems during four plus years of campus carry? Just because socialist professors will be unable to intimidate students—armed students are a great incentive to mutual respect—does not mean guns should be banned.
“As long as you keep paying, you could actually go blind and still have your concealed weapons permit.”
Is there a reason a blind person should be denied the tools to defend themselves?
His entire argument is that CCWs are too easy to get, yet no mention is made that permit owners are universally 7 to 9 times more law abiding than the rest of the population.
Hmm, when I did my CCW class in Florida it was five hours.
A side note: a few weeks ago a suppossed gun person (it was report a Muslim woman carying a firearm) was at the UCF library.
There was no terrorist at UCF. But one of the UCF police had an ad with an AR while putting the rifle back into the gun rack that was mounted in the car. Well, it was just one shot that went up and exited the vehicle
Wonder if Chief Beary has the intellect to use/apply his own logic to the rest of our protected rights?
-You don’t even have to have a class regarding the different religions and what they believe or demonstrate proficiency and then there is never a recertification. As long as you keep paying, you could actually go blind and still have your religious freedom permit. It’s a disgrace and the biggest problem is . . .
-You don’t even have to take a class on the Constitution or demonstrate proficiency in Civics prior to voting and then there is never a recertification. As long as you keep paying, you could actually go blind and still have your voters freedom permit. It’s a disgrace and the biggest problem is . . .
-You don’t even have to take a class on the internet, mass communication or modern news, you don’t have to demonstrate your public speaking abilities, grammar or demonstrate proficiency and then there is never a recertification. As long as you keep paying, you could actually go blind and still have your freedom of speech permit. It’s a disgrace and the biggest problem is . . .
Well, Chief Dick’s quoted emanation has disqualified him from public office, public debate, bearing arms, and exercising franchise. Someone that confused shouldn’t do any of those things. Though we don’t actually ban people by law from the last three just for being dumb, even out loud, govt officials can be removed without legal changes or challenges. We’re not required to listen to him either, at our discretion, no legal procedure required.
Chief Dick’s disqualifying confusions include:
1 — It is his job to implement, not influence policy.
2 — Don’t go lying about policy, law, or facts when you speak publicly.
—- I stopped reading his missive after 3 exaggerations, 2 false implications, a gross misrepresentation and one flat-out lie. Conveniently, I barely had to read beyond the first sentence.
3 — Propaganda operations are disallowed by law for most government officials and functions in the US. Internally-directed propaganda is flatly disallowed.
—- Spending public money advocating on controversial issues is forcing people to support policy and propaganda they disagree with. That’s just slimy.
4 — Chief Dick doesn’t have “battles” with the NRA. A “battle” involves people shooting at each other, and the NRA is an advocacy organization. (Also, if Chief Dick & his crew had an actual “battle” with people who support the NRA, he’d be dead, so there’s that.)
—- Chief Dick & his cohort has a policy disagreement with another group of citizens. It happens.
—- Being part of the system being discussed, Chief Dick & his cohort have a conflict of interest. Really, are we to believe that he’s or they are in it for us vs. themselves?
5 — As a “Police Chief” even for a University, Chief Dick is ultimately a public official, operating with delegated public authority, using allocated public funds.
5 — Chief Dick seems less than clear that his role as any kind of official is working for us, doing what we think is important.
—- “I just don’t see where it’s going to have a good outcome.” We do not require that Chief Dick “see” where our policy preferences will have what he thinks is a good outcome.
—- “What’s bothersome for me is that our elected officials won’t even talk to us.” Good on them. They are supposed to “talk to”, actually more like “listen to”, us, not him.
In short, paid appointment as a functionary does not give Chief Dick rule over some chunk of our world. Rather, he is responsible to us for implementing our wishes, and conscientious stewardship in what has been delegated to him. The goals and assessment of his effectiveness are ours.
Given the profound misunderstanding of his role that Chief Dick has demonstrated, and publicly spewed, apparently without second thought, he’s disqualified himself from any public office.
I do want to ask him what he planned to do after government service.
Previous comment edited, with apologies…
Some people actually read my drivel. So I try to keep it coherent and properly written. Following is edit of comment above.
Rev 1.1
Well, Chief Dick’s quoted emanation has disqualified him from public office, public debate, bearing arms, and exercising franchise. Though we don’t actually ban people from the last three just for being dumb, even out loud, govt officials can be removed without legal changes or challenges. We’re not required to listen to him either, no legal procedure required. Chief Dick’s disqualifying confusions include:
1 — It is his job to implement, not influence policy.
2 — Don’t go lying about policy, law, or facts when you speak publicly.
—- I stopped reading his missive after 3 exaggerations, 2 false implications, a gross misrepresentation and one flat-out lie. Conveniently, I barely had to read beyond the first sentence.
3 – Internal propaganda operations are disallowed for most government officials in the US.
—- Spending public money advocating on controversial issues is forcing people to support policy and propaganda they disagree with.
4 — Chief Dick doesn’t have “battles” with the NRA. A “battle” involves people shooting at each other. The NRA had no enforcement arm – it is an advocacy organization. (Also, if Chief Dick had an actual “battle” with people who support the NRA, he’d be dead, so there’s that.)
—- Chief Dick & his cohort has a policy disagreement with another group of citizens. It happens.
—- Being part of the system, Chief Dick & his cohort have a conflict of interest. Really, are we to believe that he or they are in it for us vs. themselves?
5 — As a “Police Chief” even for a University, Chief Dick is a public official because he operates with delegated public authority, using allocated public funds. Because of this, limitations on what he can do, while in uniform come with the job.
6 — Chief Dick seems unclear that his role is working for us, doing what we think is important.
—- “I just don’t see where it’s going to have a good outcome.” We do not require that Chief Dick “see” where our policy preferences will have what he thinks is a good outcome.
—- “What’s bothersome for me is that our elected officials won’t even talk to us.” Good on them. They are supposed to “talk to”, actually more like “listen to”, us, not him.
—- Conventionally, your bosses aren’t required to listen to you, in particular about your objections to their policies and priorities. (“… talk to us.” in the above meant “…. listen to us. The elected officials have been talking just fine to Chief Dick. He just doesn’t like what he’s being told.)
—- If the situation is bothersome enough to him, Chief Dick can get a different job.
In short, paid appointment as a functionary does not give Chief Dick rule over some chunk of our world. Rather, he is responsible to us for implementing our wishes, and conscientious stewardship in what has been delegated to him. The goals and assessment of his effectiveness are ours. He seems confused about all of this.
Given the profound misunderstanding of his role (not to mention silly policy opinions) that Chief Dick has demonstrated, and publicly spewed apparently without second thought, he’s disqualified himself from public office.
I do want to ask him what he planned to do after government service.
I m opposed an system where one asshole (Miguel Diaz de la Portilla,) can block any yes votes white the exeption of his no white no override option.
Thats corruption in it self !
And I bet him and his officers are all highly trained operators right?
Hate to admit it, but yea it’s basically true here in FL. Easiest way to get a CWP is through a gun show. Lecture is only an hour at most, and you only have to fire one 22LR round. ONE! And the gun is handed to you ready to fire, just pull the trigger. Done…. you’ve officially handled a firearm in a training environment…. here’s your certificate.
Obviously the formal CWP courses through various gun ranges are better suited. They last all day and you really have to demonstrate that you can hit your target.
About that man who got disarmed thing…
When he decided to pull out that gun, he has to know that he needs to shoot when the criminal poses a threat to yourself or anyone else. But he also should not pull out his gun when the criminal can disarm or kill you before you stop their threat. “Do not draw on a drawn gun”, many people say.
Ashamed of this guy. I don’t think he is accurate either. Iirc you do have to go to a range and prove a minimum proficiency.