TexasCHLforum.com

This is an interesting article about the situation in AZ. The author first starts talking about how great it is that we are going to see expanding abilities to carry firearms. But then he goes into how lucky it was that the guy that came upon the scene and subdued the subduer didn't just shoot him. I think he's trying to push for more training for folks on how to react in these sort of situations and not become "another gunman."

He does have a valid point and that's why I try to get everyone involved in the TexasCHLForum so that you can think about and talk out what to do in what situations. If you have played it through in your head before (and I play thorugh scenarios every day) then your path to the right decision is a lot easier to make in a stressful situation. Basically, the guy acted correctly DESPITE not having "enough" training. I'm all for more training.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

more training, always desirable
but
more training REQUIRED? ... poorer people can't afford extra classes maybe ... could be a way to keep certain groups of people from being legally armed to defend themselves ... Jim Crowe laws ...

Please not confuse TRAINING with GOOD JUDGEMENT and/or COMMON SENSE.

from article:
"I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here.
poised to draw
Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall"
Then author editorializes making "minor changes":
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man.

How hard did he push him? He never even drew, he wasn't close to being "poised to fire"


some good comments here too

"Would a police officer have responded differently? Would the title of the article then have been "Police almost shoot wrong man"?"

"Wow!! Irresponsible journalism with a twist! Now we have journalists taking someone to task for "almost" doing something wrong. "

"I found what I believe is information that gives me the feeling that
this armed citizen was not close to discharging his weapon at an innocent party. Since he
still had the weapon in his pocket. Based on that information he was not near to shooting an innocent bystander. "

I already wonder about this guy just because he carries a gun with a safety.

G192627 wrote:I already wonder about this guy just because he carries a gun with a safety.

So he had already fumbled around his pockets, retrieved the Smith and Wesson lock-key, inserted, gave a twist....wrong direction the first time, gave another twist.... hoped it was the correct direction that time... left his firearm concealed.

Pushed the man.

Mastodon wrote:

G192627 wrote:I already wonder about this guy just because he carries a gun with a safety.

So he had already fumbled around his pockets, retrieved the Smith and Wesson lock-key, inserted, gave a twist....wrong direction the first time, gave another twist.... hoped it was the correct direction that time... left his firearm concealed.

Pushed the man.

Hahaha.

That explains why the killer was already detained by others when he finally got there.

Guns have been in the hands of the common man for centuries without problems like someone walking up to a restrained criminal and killing them. That is a crime by the way so anyone doing it would be locked up. People have used guns to defend themselves in that time with NO training at all on how to safely handle them or safely use them. No training should be required as others have suggested. Accidents and negligent acts will occur with highly trained and untrained people but the numbers are no where near justifying even training for a privilege like CHL in my opinion. I agree a person should get training or at least take time to learn what to do when and if they need to know. But, it takes time to learn and it takes time to go thru those scenarios of our own creation. How often does a new CHL holder come into the need to use their gun? Not many even nationally.

I think if we do our job and sell our friends and family on the need for training that would cover the majority of people. A campaign educating people on the need by the various gun groups and makers would help a lot in getting people to a class. Sellers can also play a big part. I would love to see required safety and handling classes in schools. Gun owners and CCWs should get training but it is not necessary in my opinion. History has shown thru CHL that most people will seek to learn beyond the basics WHEN they understand they will be held liable to breaking the law or harming an innocent person. Most people aren't dumb enough to even involve a gun when one is not absolutely needed. That is my opinion anyway.

Just thinking about all the CHLs I know. Basically 3 groups.

The CHLs who actually carry, seem to try to further their knowledge by studying laws. most joined this site, some take more classes and practice at the range more.

The CHLs I know who don't carry, maybe got their license in order to go through the Capital's Express lane or some reason, don't so much, as they don't carry.

Grandmas with a pistol in the purse who are exceptions, but ALL the ones (a few) I know enjoy going to the range too, but don't research laws as much ...they are not going to be charging anywhere to save people, they carry only in hope to live to be 100 without some criminal spoiling that goal..

phrogg wrote:I'm all for more training.

No matter if we're talking about CHL, DL, voting, religion, or parenting,
knowledge is better than ignorance.

Ameer wrote:

phrogg wrote:I'm all for more training.

No matter if we're talking about CHL, DL, voting, religion, or parenting,
knowledge is better than ignorance.

Indeed.

RPB wrote:Just thinking about all the CHLs I know. Basically 3 groups.

The CHLs who actually carry, seem to try to further their knowledge by studying laws. most joined this site, some take more classes and practice at the range more.

The CHLs I know who don't carry, maybe got their license in order to go through the Capital's Express lane or some reason, don't so much, as they don't carry.

Grandmas with a pistol in the purse who are exceptions, but ALL the ones (a few) I know enjoy going to the range too, but don't research laws as much ...they are not going to be charging anywhere to save people, they carry only in hope to live to be 100 without some criminal spoiling that goal..

I am not a Grandma and I have absolutely no interest in living to be a 100, other than that...

Mastodon wrote:

Ameer wrote:

phrogg wrote:I'm all for more training.

No matter if we're talking about CHL, DL, voting, religion, or parenting,
knowledge is better than ignorance.

Indeed.

Indeed yes. But mandatory? No. Why? Because that gives the state extra control over our lives. Is that a worthy goal? No.