Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One

[Glockster69]

I noticed in the lecture room attacks, the BG only shot at the lecturer and the one person in the room who was armed. This ain't fair and balanced, it's abc news.
I do agree that, at least in the case of TX, there should be more proof of firearms handling capability before a CHL is issued.
Moral of story ... train, train, train

‪Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One‬‏ - YouTube

And Part Two

 

[TexasRedneck]

I do agree that, at least in the case of TX, there should be more proof of firearms handling capability before a CHL is issued.
Moral of story ... train, train, train

Agree on the training - agree that folks SHOULD know what they're doing.

But in regards to your "more proof of firearms handling capability before a CHL is issued... When you require someone to have taken public speaking and psychology classes before speaking publicly before a crowd of more that 5, THEN I'll consider supporting that.

 

[matefrio]

There should be not be a test of proficiency limiting who can carry a concealed handgun under TX CHL laws.

Subjecting anyone to a test, no matter how easy or inexpensive the government can come up with, is limiting the rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment.

Further, it's unfairly and unnecessarily holding Texas CHL holders to a higher standard than most other people who can legally own guns and conceal them in the state of Texas.

For example these do not need to pass a test of proficiency:

• A Texan who is not a CHL holder carrying a concealed handgun in their car.
• A person who holds an out of state license that has reciprocity with Texas yet doesn't have a proficiency test. Such as Utah license holders.
• A person in their own business or residence.

Finally there is no "perfect" test.

I'd like to see your suggestion here for the qualifications if you still believe it should be more difficult. In fact there could be some $$ in it for you as I've offered some before.

 

[txinvestigator]

Total thread fail

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

lmao.....gotta admit.....3:33 mark made my day....that guy will never live it down

 

[Davetex]

Well OK, according to abc we should all be just sheep all the time. Defending yourself is a complete waste of time. Just go about your business and hope you don't become a victim.

I think NOT!!

 

[London]

This video has been debunked long ago. The study was extremely flawed and the odds were unfairly stacked against the defenders; even more so than they would be in a real-world self-defense situation.

The defenders were:

Wearing heavy gloves
Wearing masks
Wearing baggy and cumbersome clothes
Using weapons they were unfamiliar with
Using unfamiliar weapons retention devices
Trained for target shooting at best rather than actual combat
Unversed in self-defense firearms handling and tactics

The attacker:

Was a trained firearms instructor with a VAST knowledge of gun handling, self- defense techniques, and offensive techniques
Highly trained hand-gunner
Told exactly who in the crowd had the gun

GARBAGE JOURNALISM AND JUNK SCIENCE. Plain and simple.

The segment says that if you want a gun for self-defense you must train like police do under stress. I don't agree with that but it it is the best type of training and would have helped these students immensely. Unfortunately the segment makes no mention of the fact that training like this is readily available to civilians and instead intentionally omits a lot of information to create anti-gun hysteria.

It also ignores the fact that when you are a crazy mass-murdering asshole; the first few victims are always freebies. They aren't expecting it and don't stand a chance. After the first few minutes people figure out what is happening and are then properly able to defend themselves.

It seems most people see how much bullshit this segment is loaded with if the like and dislike ratings are any indicator. ABC news never bothered to follow up with a correction to the story, so **** them.

P.S. It's beautiful how the cop sticks that Glock right in the newswoman's face, but not before briefly snagging his pants. Idiot. If guys like this are in charge of telling average people how dangerous guns are it's not exactly a hard sell.

P.S.S. "Innocent bystandards?"

 

[Glockster69]

But in regards to your "more proof of firearms handling capability before a CHL is issued" - screw you and the jackass you rode in on. When you require someone to have taken public speaking and psychology classes before speaking publicly before a crowd of more that 5, THEN I'll consider supporting that.

To keep my job I have to pass random drug screens and I had to give up smoking that.
Dude, what are you talking about?

 

[Glockster69]

There should be not be a test of proficiency limiting who can carry a concealed handgun under TX CHL laws.

Subjecting anyone to a test, no matter how easy or inexpensive the government can come up with, is limiting the rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment.

Further, it's unfairly and unnecessarily holding Texas CHL holders to a higher standard than most other people who can legally own guns and conceal them in the state of Texas.

For example these do not need to pass a test of proficiency:

• A Texan who is not a CHL holder carrying a concealed handgun in their car.
• A person who holds an out of state license that has reciprocity with Texas yet doesn't have a proficiency test. Such as Utah license holders.
• A person in their own business or residence.

Finally there is no "perfect" test.

I'd like to see your suggestion here for the qualifications if you still believe it should be more difficult. In fact there could be some $$ in it for you as I've offered some before.

We both agree that 2A has been trampled but my comment about better weapon proficiency requirement was in the context of current law and based only on my limited experience. As for making a better test, I am not and I've never claimed to be an instructor.

 

[matefrio]

We both agree that 2A has been trampled but my comment about better weapon proficiency requirement was in the context of current law and based only on my limited experience. As for making a better test, I am not and I've never claimed to be an instructor.

Yet your opinion is "there should be more proof of firearms handling capability before a CHL is issued" I'm asking that you quantify that as to what you'd like to see changed.

There's got to be something you believe it's sub par or you have an idea of a change or you wouldn't have made the statement.

 

[matefrio]

To keep my job I have to pass random drug screens and I had to give up smoking that.
Dude, what are you talking about?

You don't have a right to have your job. Freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly are in The Declaration of Independence.

 

[Glockster69]

Yet your opinion is "there should be more proof of firearms handling capability before a CHL is issued" I'm asking that you quantify that as to what you'd like to see changed.

There's got to be something you believe it's sub par or you have an idea of a change or you wouldn't have made the statement.

Fair enough but I repeat, that statement was made on my limited experience. I also imagined what other things were allowed throughout the state based on what I saw. Ultimately what I meant, but didn't properly convey was having a CHL does not mean someone is proficient at handling a firearm.

When I tested, the instructor clearly said before hitting the range that if anyone has a problem on the range with their weapon it is their sole responsibilty to correct the problem or it will result in failure. A lady's .32 (IIRC) jammed before she fired one round and she couldn't clear it yet she was allowed to have her husband fix the problem and given a second chance.

On an aside, there were 3-4 thug buddies in the class who clearly thought as soon as they received their license, all rounds would hit exactly where they wanted it to, just like the movies.

The thug(s) literally asked a question like 'if my boy is driving the Escalade, and I'm in the back seat, and someone starts shooting at him but I haven't received my license yet, can I shoot back'.

Everybody else in the class looked around the room to gauge each others reaction.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

Yeah I agree there are a bunch of people out there who aren't taking this seriously. I don't agree with stricter licensing standards and would prefer not having to get a plastic card from the state to conceal a handgun out and about on my daily routine.

Maybe you should ask the CHL Instructors to make it clear that if you aren't on top of your game 24/7 when you are carrying a handgun in public you can become a huge liability very quickly.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

"screw you and the jackass you rode in on"

To disagree is one thing, but THIS ?

That just ain't right.

 

[TexasRedneck]

"screw you and the jackass you rode in on"

To disagree is one thing, but THIS ?

That just ain't right.

For someone to want to restrict a Constitutional right is, in my mind, elitist at best - and bordering on treasonous. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I can remember when you could buy a gun at any place that carried them without a problem - and because we were "reasonable", we now have to worry about buying too many guns at one time, or who we might sell them to. Look at all the folks jumping through hoops to "protect themselves", etc.

 

[Glockster69]

You're doing apples and elephants. So far out of context it's ridiculous.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

For someone to want to restrict a Constitutional right is, in my mind, elitist at best - and bordering on treasonous. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I can remember when you could buy a gun at any place that carried them without a problem - and because we were "reasonable", we now have to worry about buying too many guns at one time, or who we might sell them to. Look at all the folks jumping through hoops to "protect themselves", etc.

I agree with WHAT you are saying, just HOW you said it.....thats all.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I agree with WHAT you are saying, just HOW you said it.....thats all.

Understood....but dammit, sometimes stuff just rubs me the wrong way - especially coming from someone that purports to support the 2nd.

 

[M. Sage]

"screw you and the jackass you rode in on"

To disagree is one thing, but THIS ?

That just ain't right.

Suggest further limiting someone's human rights? Expect people to get pissed at you.

I would have put it a little more diplomatically, but yeah. **** proficiency tests. What next? A literacy test to vote? Oh, right... that's been ruled an infringement on exercise of franchise. Proficiency tests are no different, and legislature has recognized that which is why the range portion of the CHL test is a joke. The class is still a hurdle which should be eliminated.

 

[M. Sage]

You're doing apples and elephants. So far out of context it's ridiculous.

He's comparing apples to apples. You're suggesting a further restriction on a basic human right.

Like I said, do you think literacy tests to vote are fine? What about mandatory training to be able to exercise your 5A protection against self-incrimination? Should the DA be able to force you to take the stand against yourself if you haven't taken a government-mandated test? Because what we do to get a CHL is no different.