Even the common Minuteman was expected to be proficient with his rifle/musket and to not shoot the man standing next to him. Why would the expectations be any less today when bearing a firearm? Training can enhance skills at any level.
Printable View
Even the common Minuteman was expected to be proficient with his rifle/musket and to not shoot the man standing next to him. Why would the expectations be any less today when bearing a firearm? Training can enhance skills at any level.
I am still looking for the floor debate regarding SB 60 which gave Texas CHL.
If one in actually interested in the changes the bill went through from what was originally submitted to what is passed, you can compare the two.
Original.
74(R) SB 60 Introduced version - Bill Text
Law.
74(R) SB 60 Enrolled version - Bill Text
I know folks aren't going to read and compare the two. But for anyone who really wants to know why there is a requirement for training or not, as I have already said, all you have to do is look at the legislative record and read it to see what was discussed.
I am certain no one will actually take time to compare the two and find the changes that took place during the legislative session.
When/If I find the copy of the record I will post it, but then again, I am certain no one will read it.
Yes, it could have benefits to all concerned. And I also think that once the education was met, any purchase from that point on by the individual should be " paper free". Walk in, buy what you want and walk out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceoky
I think training is a great thing and logic (IMO) dictates a trained person should be a safer person. (IF they follow the training and pay attention at least)
On the "flip side" many folks have been around guns since childhood, were properly taught safety and how to shoot, IMO those folks may not benefit nearly as much as someone who has never held a gun before the class(es) Most folks cannot afford private security (like so many politicians and upper crust "elites" Have now) and if they're in serious and immediate danger there should be (IMO) some exceptions made to let especially ladies and older folks carry (even temp status pending classes) ...... no one should have to risk either their lives or jail when they know they are in serious danger IMO
I agree and hope many of us can actually begin to make this happen! I know that every LEO I have ever known (and that is several) would much rather have someone in danger packing to protect themselves than to work the murder scene afterward..Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman10mm
Do you really think that NH LE or any state LE for that matter is going to think that they aren't doing things the best way, and offer up, that yes, I think that doing it the way that this other state does would be better for us?
Not going to happen. LE are there to enforce the laws that are put in place by the legislatures. On certain things, when asked, their political arm may give opinions or lobby for something in their interest, but in general, I don't think they go out on a limb to get involved in the political processes at the state level.
BTW, did you ask every Texas LE agency what their experiences or thoughts were on the matter to have the other side represented?
Dude, I explained the only way I can figure out which way is better. Becasue of the questions you are asking is the reason for the thread. They are offering their opinions, and you are offering yours. BTW: I did not ask them if they though mandatory training should be required (I have a feeling that they would say yes). I had asked them about problems with folks that have CCP's and basically they don't really arrest them for anything that is CC related. And like folks in other states it appears that they very seldom do get into trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
You can feel like you do all day long with out any data but your own feelings on it. I don't really care. I just hope you don;t tell people it is a fact that mandatory training here in TX makes it safer than other states. Of course state it as an opinion.
Why are you so full of yourself thinking that no one really cares and will not look at what you have provided? I will look at everything. That is what I started the thread for. Not to put blinders on but to educate myself and others about how and why laws are passed and if there is evidence that they are needed. Good grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
I am not full of myself. That data has been there since 1995. If you wanted to educate yourself, you could have done it long before I posted the links. It is all on the state legislatures website.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
You guys have fun with this. I asked a simple question and all got are opinions. That is cool. Just make sure when you are out and about you do not state stuff as facts.
Farronwold: I will read all documentation and data. Suprise you?
Look, I will be the first to admit I am wrong about this issue if you guys that say it indeed makes a DIFFERNCE between different states actually provides like numbers.
And ..just food for thought: do you think that the reason why TX keeps numbers is because there are many folks telling others that without it TX would turn into the wild west?
You are not getting it. You have to compare TX numbers with other states. You can't say that 55 MPH speed limit in MA saves more lives than other states when the only data you provide is for traffic accidents in MA.Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
I am not coming at this with feelings. I am coming at it from the experiences I have gotten from teaching hundreds of people in CHL classes and the responses I get in my class evaluations and comments afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
When people say "wow, I really learned alot", "I didn't know there was so much to think about", "I feel much better about carrying after taking the class", or any other numerous responses that are given when we are done with a 11+ hour day, it isn't about what I feel, it is about what, they, the new CHL holder gains from what the state requires.
I don't think I have ever gotten a comment of "what a waste of time", even from attorneys.
I was referring to the introduced bill, and the enrolled bill to see the changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
BTW, the legislative record for 1995 is not available online. They don't start that until 1999. Maybe we can meet in Austin sometime and look at the paper copy to review the floor debate on what arguments were made during the process. I'll buy the first round afterwards.
One good thing is that there is a special entrance for us CHL holders and we would be allowed to carry while in the State Capital. :yup:
I do believe (especially when CC was first being considered) things were "hard to guess" what outcomes may happen and folks chose to mostly err on the side of caution, I remember here "the wild west" was mentioned (even though we had open carry ) which I thought was laughable but folks were concerned . Non gun folks have a real fear of guns (even though many will be around them today and never have a clue) I believe part of our "job"(for lack of a better word) is to continue to educate that guns are objects (tools if you will) there are no "good guns or bad guns" there ARE bad people who will use guns, knives, hammers, cars, an axe, etc. etc. etc.
You know...I might take you up on that. At least you tried to stay focused on the OP and though you are wrong LOL, I would like to have a chat with yo about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
BTW: If Ii knew a lot of LE in TX I would ask them. Actually I know one, my nephew. But I really did know many COP's and Sherrifs in NH so I got a good insight on what was going on.
Anyhoo, I am doing HW right now and my brain is frying.