TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

Liberty wrote:Has there been issues with CHL holders making bad calls in these situations.

No. I have never heard of a Texas CHL accidentally shooting an innocent person. In the very few cases where a CHL has to shoot, typically one to three shots are fired.

These multiple-assailant and magazine-change scenarios are appropriate to police work, but I think they are overkill for a CHL.

- Jim

They can be a lot of fun in a drill or competition though

KD5NRH wrote: I'd make the CHL test include at least three targets and two no-shoots, with at least one reload on the clock. SA/NSA would be eliminated, and all applicants would be required to demonstrate proper handling of revolvers, semiautos, and derringers, but would be permitted to shoot either a revolver or semiauto for the qualifier. Any significant hit on a no-shoot would result in a failure. I'd still allow one immediate re-shoot, and possibly some remedial training for a second same-day re-shoot.

Has there been issues with CHL holders making bad calls in these situations. From what I understand the shooting of innocents is not statistically an issue. I am a computer technician. One of my cardinal rules is "If its not broke don't fix it." I want to see more folks on the streets with CHLs, because it would make all of our lives safer. The more restrictive complicated or expencive it gets the more it can dissuade folks from pursuing one.

Venus Pax wrote:I agree that many children are being coddled. There are also people that are simply criminal or anti-social by nature, and they raise their children with the same values.
However, I don't think we would see a spike in crime if we issued CHLs to 18-year-olds. Violent criminals usually begin committing crimes long before age 18. There's a paper trail there, and DPS looks into juvenile records when preparing to issue a CHL to the younger crowd.

how about 17 or 18 if they meet certain criteria with school attendence, grades and testing progress on the mandatory Texas Tests (TASS ??)

Russell wrote:

Liberty wrote: I respectfully disagree. The reason children are so slow today to grow up is that we treat them and expect them to be children. There is nothing gentically that causes our 17 yearold teen agers to be more immature than they were 40 - 60 or 100 years ago. .

Unfortunately you are incorrect about there is nothing genetically inferior with a teenagers brain.

Yeah but as I said the genitcs haven't changed over the years.

Russell wrote: As far as the military goes, I wouldn't mind raising the age to 21 as well. However, genetically speaking, a teenagers brain is in fact inferior to an adult's brain.

The military wants them young for a reason.

Russell wrote:The reason we have these odd age laws, are because PARENTS are not raising their children to be responsible. Hence, the government has to step in and be the parent for them. It stinks, it's not right, but that's the way it is because we have these liberal parents that believe in time-outs and parenting books instead of a good old fashioned spanking.

Think about it. Go to any of your local public High Schools. Do you want ANY of those High School Juniors able to carry a handgun on them?

I know darn well at the High School I went to I wouldn't. They need time to grow up, go to college, get a job, and get out into the real world before they are trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm on them

I respectfully disagree. The reason children are so slow today to grow up is that we treat them and expect them to be children. There is nothing gentically that causes our 17 yearold teen agers to be more immature than they were 40 - 60 or 100 years ago. Its simply because we as a society coddle them and have little expectations for more. At 17 we demand the courts treat them as adults we can imprisson them as adults and kill them as an adult. but we refuse to let them buy glue, tobbaco or alcohol. I've worked with some High school kids and had a few of my own When I treated them like babys I got the childish behavior in return. When I treat teens like adults they not only behave like adults, but they in return treat others with more respect.

If our military can manage to arm teenagers before they are 21 I can't understand we can't trust our own children. There is another current thread where folks are discussing when they were introduced to firearms. It seems that all these people turned out pretty good. I would bet that if we were to do a study, that we would find that children who were allowed free access to firearms in their teens had more productive lives, stayed out of trouble more than the folks that never touched a gun.

If we can give them cars at 16 or 17 why can't they have guns or bullets. The cars are killing more teens than the bullets ever will.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
I would also broaden the Castle Doctrine law so that civil immunity would apply if someone was either not charged or if they were no billed after the lawful use of force or deadly force.

This would mean someone like OJ would have gotten off Scott free.

I would still keep the CHL because it allows a mechanism to carry in other states.

I would allow any adult (17 year old) to carry, open or concealed any weapon with out a permit.

Any business that posts a 30.06 should provide proof of insurance for patrons while on their property on demand.

Gun safety with range time should be mandatory for all students Students should be proficient with rifles shotguns and handguns.

Carry should not be prohibited at schools, If they are not felons and are adults 17 and older