TexasCHLforum.com

TX Rancher wrote:Here’s another way to possibly look at the discussion…
If there is evidence showing CHL’s have shot, or attempted to shoot police officers in statistically significant numbers during traffic stops, then to me that would be justification since I don’t believe there’s data showing the CHL is at appreciable risk from the officer.

Just to play devil's advocate what appreciable risk should an officer have to take? 0.01%, 1%, 5% or 10%.

The chances are that statisically, you aren't going to have deadly force used against you today. Does that mean that you shouldn't carry today? No.

I believe that the root cause is that many [most?] police officers are still uncomfortable with "civilians" carrying guns. It's an "us versus them" mentality. This has been discussed many times in this forum.

Someone's tag line on this forum borrowed from Dirty Harry: "I have a firm policy on gun control.......if there's a gun around, I want to control it!" I believe that is how most LEOs feel. As time goes on and more people are getting CHLs the attitude is changing and I think LEOs are getting more comfortable with armed citizens.

seamusTX wrote:The heartburn territory is where the officer disarms because of gut feeling. There is the implication that the CHL holder, who has lived his entire life up to that point without committing a felony, and has no misdemeanor for at least five years, is going to shoot a cop over a traffic ticket.
- Jim

I disagree with this statement. Having a "gut feeling" about one's safety isn't the same thing as arbitrarily or indiscriminately disarming CHL holders. I think that is what most people are objecting.