How many of the average Americans here have used a gun for protection?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The same provisions of the Penal Code apply to civilians whether non-CHL or CHL and LE. The only distinction might be when one is called upon to justify the "shoot-don't shoot" decision the presence of training that is inconsistent with the facts of the response might cause you some difficulty in avoiding civil liability for your actions, and to some degree with criminal liability in a "close case." In that sense the amount of documented training would be a consideration, although I believe the threat level addressed by your response would probably be of greater consideration in the judgment decision.

The positive aspect of the CHL training is the academic portion that provides an insight into the appropriate decision making on the "use of force continuum."

Ok, well, thanks for pointing out that because I am a CHL holder I am held to a higher standard.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by timpage

But, the idea that you should be allowed to carry with no training is nuts. The current training offered in Texas is a joke. The decision to carry a handgun for personal protection ought to be one requiring some reflection.....and some qualification criteria...

I agree with your assessment.

"A problem" is convincing some "bad boy" that he needs "more training" is as easy as telling some newly licensed driver he ain't ready for the Indy. The testosterone boils over. Just look at the posts on this board.

"Another problem" is marketing. In our fast food mentality driven society asking someone to "come back" for the next 3-4 days to work on tactical shooting/decision making drills, when they already think they are gunslingers ready for the OK Corral is a hard sell. To put it in perspective ...

.. BASIC peace officer training in Texas includes about 120 hours of BASIC classroom and practicals in blocks of instruction for qualification to take the peace officer's exam and qualification with the same subjects that "brushed" in the 8 to 10 hours of the BASIC CHL class in Texas. The Texas Department of Public Safety has about 350 to 400 hours of the same subject for a trooper to be graduated to field training. That's just BASIC.

An additional problem is the lack of facilities in many areas that can accommodate tactical/shoot-don't shoot/low light decision making/ instinctive shooting with a variety of conditions created for that purpose.

Another point is LE is not interested in training persons to better confront LE in a combat type shoot out .... the military does a good enough job of it.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Finally a decent opinion post. Here is the question to go with it, how do you force people to get the proper training and NOT turn the entire process into a money making deal for the state. Can you grandfather people with military service or law enforcement experience? What about people who competitively shoot but have never served in either the military or LE? What about temperment. This is what they did in CT when I was there. To get a CCL you had to have a recommendation from a qualified pistol instructor, an interview with either a sheriff or police captain, and you paid $15 for a FBI background check. You laid down $30 and you got your CCL in less than two weeks. It didn't cost you a fortune, it didn't take the maximum amount of time, and you were not forced to go through training that you didn't need (if you are already competent).

Still, none of that is a magic bullet. You can still miss, you can still misread a situation, and you can still do something that is personally very bad at the spur of the moment. Just like a trained policeman.

I'll ask another question, why are this about an honest person wanting to carry for protection? Where is the angst over stopping some criminal from using a weapon to commit crimes?

As I indicated, I am in favor of carry legislation for the obvious reason that it allows me to carry a handgun to protect myself and/or my family. I don't have any "angst" over stopping a criminal from committing crimes. I just don't think that carry legislation does that in any statistically significant way. And, I don't think handing a weapon to an untrained person is a good idea.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest over which study says what but there is no serious statistically significant study that supports the idea that concealed carry has lessened the crime rate. It's NRA hoohah. That having been said, there probably isn't any reliable data or theory that adequately, or accurately, explains why the crime rate has dropped. I've read and heard all sorts of things including the legalization of abortion, the state of the economy theories, more people stay off the street because of the proliferation of air conditioning, video games and television, etc etc. I personally believe that the reason is more aggressive and effective policing techniques by law enforcement....but, there is no way to prove that.

Also, grandfathering military and law enforcement people is not a good idea in my opinion. Did you watch the news today and see the report on the cop in Charleston shooting the black guy eight times as he was limping, wobbling away from the cop and posing absolutely no threat? Many police officers aren't trained any better than the average CHL holder on how to handle a deadly force encounter. Many, probably most, have never handled a handgun when they sign on....they receive some training at the academy and then have to qualify every so often by shooting at a paper target.

Same with military people. I read somewhere that a huge percentage of people joining the military these days have never fired a weapon in their life. I guess if you are spec ops or even combat infantry, you might get adequate training but most military people don't have a clue about safe weapons use, handling and storage any more than the average civilian, at least based on my experience and I have some. That having been said, I am certain there are many military and police vets who are well-trained and safe. But, they ought to have to take the testing and training the same as everybody else because there is no way to know if they are well-trained and safe unless that occurs.

One mistake with a firearm is forever. Whether it is leaving it in a place where a child can get their hands on it, shooting someone unintentionally because of careless handling or just misreading a situation and shooting someone mistakenly or getting yourself shot. The only way to minimize these types of events is to train...and then train some more.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by timpage

Also, grandfathering military and law enforcement people is not a good idea in my opinion.

Many police officers aren't trained any better than the average CHL holder on how to handle a deadly force encounter. Many, probably most, have never handled a handgun when they sign on....they receive some training at the academy and then have to qualify every so often by shooting at a paper target.

Same with military people.

Firearms qualification is distinguished from firearms training. Some departments are better than others within a specific state. Some states are better than others. Unfortunately, advance mandatory firearms training is not pushed on departments. Now there is an even greater deterrent to increased firearms training and that is a growing opposition to police even carrying firearms .... The focus is on removing the firearm, rather than improved training. The shooting incident currently in the news is not prevalent, and should be used as a justification for taking broad actions against LE.

Military training is not the same as the training for carrying a handgun in civilian environments with a different code of behavior required among citizens. No one should be "grandfathered" into carrying.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

These are not "FACTS" .... they are opinions based on statistical data, which is also based on an opinion. Unless you are simply posting to argue, you posted the above OPINIONS to dispute the claim made that CHL reduces crime. Regardless of your subsequent desire to retreat from that purpose.

I do agree with your statement/opinion that other factors affect crime rates, and those factors play a greater role in changes in the statistical data.

For instance: LE and EMS response times when an incident is reported have an affect on murder rates.

You don't understand statistics, number one. By definition, statistics is the science of decision making, it is based on facts, not rumors or opinion. Belief and fact are not the same thing. Where is your evidence that these 'other' factors play a greater role in the changes in statistical data? You haven't even proven changes in the statistical data yet and you're already jumping ahead to say it's a fact and not only that, but it has an effect on murder rates. These are opinions until you present statistical data to back them up.

There are many reasons crime rates drop. Education is one. A more educated populace doesn't commit as many crimes. That's an accepted fact. You're welcome to go look it up. Conversely, things such as the three-strike rule have had no real effect in lowering crime rates. You're also free to look that one up.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Finally a decent opinion post. Here is the question to go with it, how do you force people to get the proper training and NOT turn the entire process into a money making deal for the state. Can you grandfather people with military service or law enforcement experience? What about people who competitively shoot but have never served in either the military or LE? What about temperment. This is what they did in CT when I was there. To get a CCL you had to have a recommendation from a qualified pistol instructor, an interview with either a sheriff or police captain, and you paid $15 for a FBI background check. You laid down $30 and you got your CCL in less than two weeks. It didn't cost you a fortune, it didn't take the maximum amount of time, and you were not forced to go through training that you didn't need (if you are already competent).

Still, none of that is a magic bullet. You can still miss, you can still misread a situation, and you can still do something that is personally very bad at the spur of the moment. Just like a trained policeman.

I'll ask another question, why are this about an honest person wanting to carry for protection? Where is the angst over stopping some criminal from using a weapon to commit crimes?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I agree with your assessment.

"A problem" is convincing some "bad boy" that he needs "more training" is as easy as telling some newly licensed driver he ain't ready for the Indy. The testosterone boils over. Just look at the posts on this board.

"Another problem" is marketing. In our fast food mentality driven society asking someone to "come back" for the next 3-4 days to work on tactical shooting/decision making drills, when they already think they are gunslingers ready for the OK Corral is a hard sell. To put it in perspective ...

.. BASIC peace officer training in Texas includes about 120 hours of BASIC classroom and practicals in blocks of instruction for qualification to take the peace officer's exam and qualification with the same subjects that "brushed" in the 8 to 10 hours of the BASIC CHL class in Texas. The Texas Department of Public Safety has about 350 to 400 hours of the same subject for a trooper to be graduated to field training. That's just BASIC.

An additional problem is the lack of facilities in many areas that can accommodate tactical/shoot-don't shoot/low light decision making/ instinctive shooting with a variety of conditions created for that purpose.

Another point is LE is not interested in training persons to better confront LE in a combat type shoot out .... the military does a good enough job of it.

We agree. No one should be grandfathered in. For many of the reasons already listed.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There is nothing in the first article that supports your statement that the drop in the crime rate is due to people legally carrying a concealed handgun.

There's four quotes that support my statement in the first two pages in the first link. You're ridiculous.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

There's four quotes that support my statement in the first two pages in the first link. You're ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is using a website with 'gun' in the title to back up your assertion. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can do better than that. Why not use the NRA website, they don't have a dog in this hunt...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It is reasonable for me to assume I am more familiar with "FACTS" than you.

Since I've been a member of this forum you have shown yourself to be an egotistical blowhard who believes his OPINIONS are superior to those of others. You can make any assumptions that you desire to make. As in most cases, you will be incorrect.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

These are not "FACTS" .... they are opinions based on statistical data, which is also based on an opinion. Unless you are simply posting to argue, you posted the above OPINIONS to dispute the claim made that CHL reduces crime. Regardless of your subsequent desire to retreat from that purpose.

I do agree with your statement/opinion that other factors affect crime rates, and those factors play a greater role in changes in the statistical data.

For instance: LE and EMS response times when an incident is reported have an affect on murder rates.

As usual, you are 100% WRONG. When are facts facts? People like you cite facts as facts all the time. It is when others cite similar facts as facts with which you disagree that you have problems. .At least you are consistently wrong. Go have another drink you egotistical blowhard.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You don't understand statistics, number one. By definition, statistics is the science of decision making, it is based on facts, not rumors or opinion. Belief and fact are not the same thing. Where is your evidence that these 'other' factors play a greater role in the changes in statistical data? You haven't even proven changes in the statistical data yet and you're already jumping ahead to say it's a fact and not only that, but it has an effect on murder rates. These are opinions until you present statistical data to back them up.

There are many reasons crime rates drop. Education is one. A more educated populace doesn't commit as many crimes. That's an accepted fact. You're welcome to go look it up. Conversely, things such as the three-strike rule have had no real effect in lowering crime rates. You're also free to look that one up.

Thank you. LL is simply a pompous know-it-all whose handle should be LexusLoser.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

As I indicated, I am in favor of carry legislation for the obvious reason that it allows me to carry a handgun to protect myself and/or my family. I don't have any "angst" over stopping a criminal from committing crimes. I just don't think that carry legislation does that in any statistically significant way. And, I don't think handing a weapon to an untrained person is a good idea.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest over which study says what but there is no serious statistically significant study that supports the idea that concealed carry has lessened the crime rate. It's NRA hoohah. That having been said, there probably isn't any reliable data or theory that adequately, or accurately, explains why the crime rate has dropped. I've read and heard all sorts of things including the legalization of abortion, the state of the economy theories, more people stay off the street because of the proliferation of air conditioning, video games and television, etc etc. I personally believe that the reason is more aggressive and effective policing techniques by law enforcement....but, there is no way to prove that.

Also, grandfathering military and law enforcement people is not a good idea in my opinion. Did you watch the news today and see the report on the cop in Charleston shooting the black guy eight times as he was limping, wobbling away from the cop and posing absolutely no threat? Many police officers aren't trained any better than the average CHL holder on how to handle a deadly force encounter. Many, probably most, have never handled a handgun when they sign on....they receive some training at the academy and then have to qualify every so often by shooting at a paper target.

Same with military people. I read somewhere that a huge percentage of people joining the military these days have never fired a weapon in their life. I guess if you are spec ops or even combat infantry, you might get adequate training but most military people don't have a clue about safe weapons use, handling and storage any more than the average civilian, at least based on my experience and I have some. That having been said, I am certain there are many military and police vets who are well-trained and safe. But, they ought to have to take the testing and training the same as everybody else because there is no way to know if they are well-trained and safe unless that occurs.

One mistake with a firearm is forever. Whether it is leaving it in a place where a child can get their hands on it, shooting someone unintentionally because of careless handling or just misreading a situation and shooting someone mistakenly or getting yourself shot. The only way to minimize these types of events is to train...and then train some more.

Well, you can't prove the NRA or John Lott is lying but you can just say that it is opinion if you prefer.
As for the South Carolina murder (yep, I wrote murder) I have already posted on it and I asked the first question about why would a guy jog away from an armed officer? Something else is going on there.
When I joined the service, I was won one of a few people who could hit the target. I saw one guy actually (I only thought this was on tv shows) trying to push the bullet down the barrel of the rifle!
You may want to look at what I posted a few days ago about firearms training in the schools just like we teach archery.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well, you can't prove the NRA or John Lott is lying but you can just say that it is opinion if you prefer.
As for the South Carolina murder (yep, I wrote murder) I have already posted on it and I asked the first question about why would a guy jog away from an armed officer? Something else is going on there.
When I joined the service, I was won one of a few people who could hit the target. I saw one guy actually (I only thought this was on tv shows) trying to push the bullet down the barrel of the rifle!
You may want to look at what I posted a few days ago about firearms training in the schools just like we teach archery.

Why would you jog TOWARDS an armed officer, you been eating retard sandwiches again? Nobody cares about your target practice. You go through training just like everybody else. You aren't special.

[JD Barleycorn]

You're just too stupid to respond to. Good day idiot.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

Ok, well, thanks for pointing out that because I am a CHL holder I am held to a higher standard.

That's not what I posted. It's the same standard. The Texas Penal Code.