TexasCHLforum.com

DoubleJ wrote:so, whaddya think of the DISD's SWAT Team?

It's about time.

I am disappointed in the paltry amount of resources provided. Four M4's for a school district with how many hundreds of schools? Ugh!

It reaffirms my theory that the DISD school board is in denial about the inevitable terrorist attacks that our schools will experience.

AEA wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

precedent

I hope so too.

Thank you for the correction. We're never too old to learn!

A Houston radio station is following up the Cleveland school shooting with a daily poll question: "Should teachers be allowed to carry guns in school?" Go vote at http://www.ktrh.com . It'll be up today (Thursday) only.

Keith B wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Keith B wrote: I think their reasoning (even though it may be unreasonable) is that if a LEO or someone else armed comes in and sees someone with a gun in hand, they may fire on them thinking they are the BG.

However, if it is over, the BG is down and everyone has re-holstered, no guns will be seen and lives may have been saved.

I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't.

I would think the CHL holders would drop or lower their guns once LEO arrived. Also, they would obey your orders. I don't think it would be too hard to sort out.

Keith B wrote:I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't. The BG can easily identify me from my uniform. If there is only one gun displayed, and they are waving it around, it is a lot easier and shorter time for me to make the call on their intentions and potentially get drawn down on the subject vs. sorting through the others and maybe not picking out the right one.

Well, unless you plan to just come in guns-a-blazin' on anybody you see armed, you'll need to do some checking anyway. After all, the one guy you see with a gun in the latter scenario may be an off-duty or undercover cop also looking for the BG. That has happened before.

I'll add I believe that school districts should require Fragmenting rounds be used. Many schools have the heavy builder block stlye inside walls; ricochet at shallow angles would be sever in some of the older buildings.

Right now that radio poll is at 55% to 45% in favor of teachers carrying. Kind of amazing to me that the favorable number isn't better.

stroo wrote:Right now that radio poll is at 55% to 45% in favor of teachers carrying. Kind of amazing to me that the favorable number isn't better.

Its because there is nothing keeping people from voting over and over and over...such as an anti-gun libtard clicking no, refresh, no, refresh, no, refresh, no, refresh, no, refresh, no, refresh, no as fast as possible..this poll is at best worthless

cbr600 wrote:

HEMIzygote wrote:In the confusion of a school shooting, police officials have said, adding guns to the situation just makes the predicament more dangerous.

Wait. The police are going to respond to a school shooting without their guns to avoid making the predicament more dangerous? Is that what "police officials" are saying?

Oh so now logic comes into play!!!

As serious as this issue is...I just can't help but snicker at the absolute stupidity of those officials making these asinine evaluations and comments...

There are credible arguements to the pros and cons of teachers carrying weapons. My feelings are mixed but the bottom line to me is simple, if I have gone through the course, have passed the background checks then I should be carry unrestricted any where I want to carry.
Since that wont happen I do feel there should two classes of licenses. Restricted and Unrestricted. Unrestricted is someone that has served at least five years in law enforcement, retired or resigned in good standing. I have 15 years experience in LE, am a former SWAT sniper. I think I am pretty up to speed on when to shoot and not shoot. But now I am just a civilian. So obey the law I must.

dac1842 wrote:I do feel there should two classes of licenses. Restricted and Unrestricted. Unrestricted is someone that has served at least five years in law enforcement, retired or resigned in good standing.

Many competitive shooters have more experience with firearms than the average cop so maybe it should be the opposite.

boomerang wrote:

dac1842 wrote:I do feel there should two classes of licenses. Restricted and Unrestricted. Unrestricted is someone that has served at least five years in law enforcement, retired or resigned in good standing.

Many competitive shooters have more experience with firearms than the average cop so maybe it should be the opposite.

I am concerened about the talk of special licenses in general. Those with a CHL shuld be allowed to pack. No one should need to be made aware of who is packing and who isn't. It could be a bad career move if it is known that a particular teacher is packing. A special permit would make anonymous discrete packing more difficult.

Many competitive shooters have more experience with firearms, true statement. Most competitive shooters have not been in shoot or don't shoot situations and have had to make life changing decisions in a split second.
I am quite the advocate of a right to carry. Really I do feel that if we have gone thorugh the course we should all be unrestricted. But we will never see that.

and what percentage of LEO's have been in actual shoot-don't shoot positions? Obviously a higher percentage than CHL's, but most likely less than the average person would think. My guess is there is still a very large number of LEO's, particularly small city police, that rarely ever unholster their weapons except at or near range qualification requirement time.

How about an "advanced" CHL where you have to take a 40 hr course on self defense and the law, something like LFI-I for instance? At the end of the course you would have to pass a written test AND turn in a passing score going through a number of "shoot / no shoot" scenarios shot in one of those simulators (the kind with full motion video, computer controlled, that reacts realistically to whatever you do)?

People with this certification would be demonstrating a level of training, knowledge, proficiency, and level of judgement similar to licensed peace officers. So they should be able to carry anywhere a peace officer can carry.

Logistics might be a problem. Those simulators aren't cheap. Maybe DPS would have to put on the course themselves.