TexasCHLforum.com

The state makes money on CHL Taxes and instructor classes (for the instructors-to-be).


They will not want to give that up.

MrsChemist45 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I wished that gun safety is taught at school. Starting from Mid school at age of 15.

Except - 15? Why wait that long. Basic safety (NRA's Eddie Eagle - Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the area, Tell an adult) can easily be taught in kindergarten. By the time they are 8, or maybe 10, lots of kids are responsible enough to safely fire a gun, given proper education in the matter.

At age 15 I wil ;et my kids shoot pistols and rifles under supervision. Most likely they would be competing too.

Beiruty wrote:

MrsChemist45 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I wished that gun safety is taught at school. Starting from Mid school at age of 15.

Except - 15? Why wait that long. Basic safety (NRA's Eddie Eagle - Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the area, Tell an adult) can easily be taught in kindergarten. By the time they are 8, or maybe 10, lots of kids are responsible enough to safely fire a gun, given proper education in the matter.

At age 15 I wil ;et my kids shoot pistols and rifles under supervision. Most likely they would be competing too.

At 15 I was driving and carrying . . . oops . . . never mind.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:At 15 I was driving and carrying . . . oops . . . never mind.

Chas.

Hmmm, driving a buggy and carrying a matchlock?

Crossfire wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:At 15 I was driving and carrying . . . oops . . . never mind.

Chas.

Hmmm, driving a buggy and carrying a matchlock?

Driving a bicycle and carrying a backpack full of high school stuff?

I just voted YES (of course) on this poll. I can't believe 22 people voted no. And the Not Sure? Wow.

22 People voted no.

If you are not familiar with this quote, it is a good one and applicable here IMHO:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

And this one:

* Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium.
o I prefer liberty with danger to slavery with security.
o Alt. translation: I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.
o Alt. translation: I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.
o Alt. translation: I prefer dangerous freedeom over peaceful slavery.
o Rafał Leszczyński in the Polish Senate, according to his son, Stanisław Leszczyński (King Stanislas of Poland) in La voix libre du citoyen, ou Observations sur le gouvernement de Pologne (1749), p. 135.

Regards,
James

Beiruty wrote:As for Voting, I assume that one of the duties of public schools is to teach something about the Political System in US, what does mean to vote and how to value the words of the politicians.

There is no requirement to graduate from public school (or any school) to vote, only a minimum age and registration are required. The subjects you mentioned were taught when I attended high school in Minnesota in the sixties. Whether they are taught now, and whether any students are paying attention, I can't answer.

extremist wrote:I just voted YES (of course) on this poll. I can't believe 22 people voted no. And the Not Sure? Wow.

I sorta voted "not sure"... really I just haven't voted yet, because I'm not sure. I figure I'm still pretty new to this and don't really know the ins & outs well enough to make an informed decision.

LarryH wrote:

Beiruty wrote:As for Voting, I assume that one of the duties of public schools is to teach something about the Political System in US, what does mean to vote and how to value the words of the politicians.

There is no requirement to graduate from public school (or any school) to vote, only a minimum age and registration are required. The subjects you mentioned were taught when I attended high school in Minnesota in the sixties. Whether they are taught now, and whether any students are paying attention, I can't answer.

Students today are too busy learning how to hug-a-tree, vote democratic, global warming, and how to wear a condom to worry about such arcane stuff as civics.

I voted no, but I want to change it to yes. My home state of Kentucky is an open carry state and the streets are not running red nor are they akin to the "Wild West". Why would it be any different here? If someone wants a gun, there are many ways to get one. It don't matter what laws are enacted.

redlin67 wrote:I voted no, but I want to change it to yes. My home state of Kentucky is an open carry state and the streets are not running red nor are they akin to the "Wild West". Why would it be any different here? If someone wants a gun, there are many ways to get one. It don't matter what laws are enacted.

I'm glad you changed your mind and more so that you gave a very good reason.

Perhaps, but road rage tends to be a temporary thing and can't be anticipated. I'd rather have guys out there who are furious but draw the line because they know the rules and can restrain themselves. I know a bunch of folks who would be quite dangerous in an urban setting. Please don't compare Texas to Alaska unless you want to turn a bunch of bears loose on the neighborhood. Vermont and Alaska tend to lock bad guys up and throw the key away. We have a habit of patting them on the head, reminding them of what a bad wrap they got, and turn them loose.

gdanaher wrote:Perhaps, but road rage tends to be a temporary thing and can't be anticipated. I'd rather have guys out there who are furious but draw the line because they know the rules and can restrain themselves. I know a bunch of folks who would be quite dangerous in an urban setting. Please don't compare Texas to Alaska unless you want to turn a bunch of bears loose on the neighborhood. Vermont and Alaska tend to lock bad guys up and throw the key away. We have a habit of patting them on the head, reminding them of what a bad wrap they got, and turn them loose.

Feed the bad guys to the bears. Win-Win!

gdanaher wrote:Perhaps, but road rage tends to be a temporary thing and can't be anticipated. I'd rather have guys out there who are furious but draw the line because they know the rules and can restrain themselves. I know a bunch of folks who would be quite dangerous in an urban setting. Please don't compare Texas to Alaska unless you want to turn a bunch of bears loose on the neighborhood. Vermont and Alaska tend to lock bad guys up and throw the key away. We have a habit of patting them on the head, reminding them of what a bad wrap they got, and turn them loose.

Pretty much anyone can can carry in their automobiles now, and I haven't noticed any blood in the streets.
I'm wondering how you got the the idea that Texas is softer on criminals than Alaska or Vermont.

In a perfect world everyone should be taught gun safety as a child. Every American required to carry a gun unless they are mentally ill or a criminal. I would go so far as to support officers writing me a ticket if I was found without my gun on my person. Sure, it may be a little tense at first, but everyone would be a lot more polite.