The answer to that would also be "yes", but deserving of additional information.K5GU wrote:Therefore you see no reason to change the CHL proficiency requirements as they are today, right?ScooterSissy wrote:Then the answer would be yes. You answer is circular to the question. If a person passes the test, then they have met the legal requirement, thus the test is sufficient to prove they met the legal requirement.K5GU wrote:Let me try to address your question.."Sufficient for what?" I think in the context of CHL class, one of the reasons you're taking the test is to show you're proficient enough for getting the instructor(s) to sign off on your application, and whether or not the handgun proficiency requirements are sufficient enough to meet the instructor's (and the DPS) law requirements to do that while also staying in compliance with the Texas Constitution.ScooterSissy wrote:I agree, but have to say I didn't like the title of the thread (or the question posed). Sufficient for what? Is the test "sufficient" to prove that candidate is a highly capable shooter? Nope, it's not. But then, a harder accuracy test that one has to take one time wouldn't really do that either.steveincowtown wrote:100% sufficient. In the states where no CHL is required and proficiency test is required there has zero problems relating to "proficiency."
The Texas CHL course will not make you a student of the law or a good shot. Participating in forums like this, keeping up on pending legislation, and practicing often at the range and at home will. The odds that you will ever use your weapon are slim, and the statistics show that if you do have to use it it will be a very close range. Plinking a few round done range, and a stationary target, which is at eye level, which you are shooting under very little pressure, while standing in the perfect position, is in no way representative of a real world scenario.
Frankly, I passed the proficiency test and it was the first time I had ever fired a handgun. I got better after I got my CHL (and my own handgun). It's probably worth noting that the guy sharing a lane with me was a deputy sherrif (I won't say what county), and I did better on the test than he did.
It really is about personal responsibility, and making a stricter requirement won't make anyone more responsible; at least, not for any longer than it takes to pass the test.
I don't think the current "proficiency test" really proves that a shooter is very proficient, but I don't think it was meant to do that. I think it was meant to weed out the folks that would be "scary dangerous" shooting a weapon. Like I said, I was able to pass the test without ever having previously fired a pistol. I would not not have called myself a "proficient" shooter at that point. I didn't own a gun (yet), and likely would have had trouble locking the slide back, and probably would have been nervous if someone asked me to ensure the chamber and action were cleared.
However, I did walk out with enough knowledge to know that those were things I needed to become familiar with when I owned a gun (and have). I also knew that I I could stand on a range with minimal pressure and hit a target no more than 15 yards away. Did that instill enough confidence that I could go out and safely protect myself in a firefight? Nope. But, it did get me my CHL, which contributed to my desire to own a handgun (without my CHL, I doubt I would have bought my gun), which allowed me to get better. I never had to to spend a dime or a day at the range to keep my CHL, but I did.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even a harder test wouldn't work if all someone wanted to do was meet their minimum requirements for a CHL. Someone with that attitude would just practice enough to pass the test, then continue to do the "minimum" (which is nothing) to keep it.
Yeah - what he said (and did so much better than I).Middle Age Russ wrote:As has been said before, it all depends on what is meant by the term sufficient in the question. The CHL Proficiency test is sufficient to meet the dictates of the law. It is not sufficient to guarantee any real-world proficiency in time of need (nor is any other test short of a real-world need to use your handgun). Given that guns are simply tools, such a test is an affront to the Liberty-minded and to the clear meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. You don't see any requirement for proficiency testing if you choose to carry a hammer or use a nail-gun or chainsaw, so why is a handgun any different? A person can do a good deal of damage with any of these in a short period of time.
I firmly believe that everyone should become proficient in the use of their tools, and in using them safely, but this test proves very little and the arguments against it seem as numerous and compelling as the arguments for it.