TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:I couldn't disagree more.

I am not completely sure ... do tell with a little more detail perhaps what you disagree with? Thanks!

rytchard wrote:

TXBO wrote:I couldn't disagree more.

I am not completely sure ... do tell with a little more detail perhaps what you disagree with? Thanks!

I too disagree with making either the written test or the range portion of the class more difficult. Twenty years of experience with CHL proves there is no problem that needs fixing.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rytchard wrote:

TXBO wrote:I couldn't disagree more.

I am not completely sure ... do tell with a little more detail perhaps what you disagree with? Thanks!

I too disagree with making either the written test or the range portion of the class more difficult. Twenty years of experience with CHL proves there is no problem that needs fixing.

Chas.

I agree with everything Mr. Cotton said. I go so far as to say there should be NO TEST. The 2nd amendment says nothing about you can keep and bear arms, if...

If your instructor is worth his/her salt they will do everything in their power to help you understand everything you need to pass the test. Don't stress over it.

Nothing to worry about OP, go in with a dab of common sense and a little bit of attention to the teacher and you'll be fine!

The written test is really easy like everybody said. Bring a note pad and write down the important key points and read them during your break or before the test. A lot of it is common sense.

As far as the shooting test, I though is was really easy. But in my class, we did have two people who failed the shooting test. Multiple shots were placed outside of the target silhouette at 7 yards, which I thought was really scary.

A miss means a bystander may get shot. Not good.

I thought the 15 yard shooting part was a bit excessive in distance. I doubt I'd be engaging someone that far away. Just too great of a chance in a stressful situation of hitting a bystander at that range.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Twenty years of experience with CHL proves there is no problem that needs fixing.

Chas.

Well, Chuck, I guess we can agree to disagree here. My opinion is based on 15 years in the Marine Corps and it is felt that the desired, not the required, firearm training should be at a level of expertise, and not that of simply familiarity. But you know, I guess you are right. A CHL is a license and not a certificate of proficiency and does not need fixing.

I stand corrected.

rytchard wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Twenty years of experience with CHL proves there is no problem that needs fixing.

Chas.

Well, Chuck, I guess we can agree to disagree here. My opinion is based on 15 years in the Marine Corps and it is felt that the desired, not the required, firearm training should be at a level of expertise, and not that of simply familiarity. But you know, I guess you are right. A CHL is a license and not a certificate of proficiency and does not need fixing.

I stand corrected.

The empirical data shows that training requirements have little to no effect on crime and accident rate. John Lott has included that in his studies several times. I apologize, I've read so many of his papers, I don't have a link for you. However, he also found that longer training requirements and price have a negative effect on the number of law abiding citizens that actually carry. So in short, it reduces the number of permit holders and does nothing to reduce accidents or crime.

I believe in training. Personally, I enjoy it. However, I believe proficiency is a personal responsibility and not a matter of legislation. Especially when it comes to a enumerated inalienable right.

TXBO wrote:The empirical data shows that training requirements have little to no effect on crime and accident rate. John Lott has included that in his studies several times. I apologize, I've read so many of his papers, I don't have a link for you. However, he also found that longer training requirements and price have a negative effect on the number of law abiding citizens that actually carry. So in short, it reduces the number of permit holders and does nothing to reduce accidents or crime.

I believe in training. Personally, I enjoy it. However, I believe proficiency is a personal responsibility and not a matter of legislation. Especially when it comes to a enumerated inalienable right.

Points well taken. Thanks!

rytchard wrote:

TXBO wrote:The empirical data shows that training requirements have little to no effect on crime and accident rate. John Lott has included that in his studies several times. I apologize, I've read so many of his papers, I don't have a link for you. However, he also found that longer training requirements and price have a negative effect on the number of law abiding citizens that actually carry. So in short, it reduces the number of permit holders and does nothing to reduce accidents or crime.

I believe in training. Personally, I enjoy it. However, I believe proficiency is a personal responsibility and not a matter of legislation. Especially when it comes to a enumerated inalienable right.

Points well taken. Thanks!

Thank you for your service.

HKsig wrote:A miss means a bystander may get shot. Not good.

True but a direct hit could also mean that a bystander got shot.

TXBO wrote:

HKsig wrote:A miss means a bystander may get shot. Not good.

True but a direct hit could also mean that a bystander got shot.