TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:I'm not completely comfortable with the CHL crowd who qualified a while back with a brand new firearm and haven't practiced since. I have an acquantance that has never fired his EDC. Bought it new, loaded it up and thinks he's good to go. He qualified with another gun and hasn't shot it since either.

Trying to get him to go to the range is like pulling teeth. He doesn't even own a cleaning kit.

If an active shooter was in my children's High School roaming the halls and gunning down children, I'd still rather your acquaintance was there armed with a chance to stop the threat rather than leaving my children utterly defenseless.

I think the whole "schools are an extra-special case so we need extra-special training" is missing the mark, and actually playing into the anti-gunners mentality. Schools aren't fundamentally any different than businesses, shopping malls or any other place where crowds of people gather, and the general CHL has a proven track record sustained in many states over a couple of decades. If you argue for more training for schools, then you open yourself to the argument, "well, why not more training for shopping malls"?

None of these CHL's in schools are meant to be "tactical operators" or "emergency responders" anyway. Basically, instead of having a totally unarmed population, it simply makes sense to allow a responsible adult the opportunity to defend himself (and if he chooses, defend other innocent parties) instead of standing there defenseless. The same equation plays in a shopping mall or anyplace else crowds gather.

As far as this whole "quarterly qualification", geez, give me a break. This is the same session where we are looking to reduce the number of training hours from 12 to 4 because the additional training has not been demonstrated to save additional lives.

Training as a personal decision is something I fully support in my own choices, shooting and competing approximately 30 times a year. But I do not support the government making tighter restrictions.

RHenriksen wrote:I'm not gonna pile on :-)

I'll just say that I'd prefer less regulation, red tape, and expense. If the above was a necessary evil to get it passed, I won't fall over and die; but I'd prefer not to add yet more government.

RHenriksen wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Te ... 186974.php

"Dewhurst says the state funding needed would depend on the number of participating districts and how many people want training. School districts wouldn't be required to participate."

I certainly hope there is more to any upcoming bill than this - that we'd escape from the need for a school district board to explicitly grant permission for a teacher, staff, or parent to carry on campus under their CHL.