TexasCHLforum.com

I know it's right this time-I spell-checked it.

Embalmo wrote:I know it's right this time-I spell-checked it.

Are you sure you didn't mean Kory instead of Kerry?

tacticool wrote:

Embalmo wrote:I know it's right this time-I spell-checked it.

Are you sure you didn't mean Kory instead of Kerry?

So close but so farr

AndyC wrote:

blue wrote:WHY ARE THEY HAVING ANY SAY, AT ALL, WHERE OR WHAT CHLers ARE DOING???

Because it's private property.

It is? Seems to me I pay taxes to the Collin County Community College, at least. Is their campus private property? Is UT supported by tax money?

SlickTX wrote: His point is that the risk of bystanders being shot,of other CHL "responders" being shot or LEOs being shot outweighs the benefits of allowing concealed carry.

This is absurd!
(the author's point, not you SlickTX!)

This does not happen off campus with CHL's and it will not happen on campus (or is it Capus?)

AndyC wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

AndyC wrote:

blue wrote:WHY ARE THEY HAVING ANY SAY, AT ALL, WHERE OR WHAT CHLers ARE DOING???

Because it's private property.

It is? Seems to me I pay taxes to the Collin County Community College, at least. Is their campus private property? Is UT supported by tax money?

You're saying it's public ground, then?

I smell a setup.....

PappaGun wrote:

AndyC wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

AndyC wrote:

blue wrote:WHY ARE THEY HAVING ANY SAY, AT ALL, WHERE OR WHAT CHLers ARE DOING???

Because it's private property.

It is? Seems to me I pay taxes to the Collin County Community College, at least. Is their campus private property? Is UT supported by tax money?

You're saying it's public ground, then?

I smell a setup.....

I'm totally going to steal this from AndyC.

If it's public ground, then they have a say because they are taxpayers that pay to support it just as much as anyone else.

.... doesn't mean we have to agree with what they say though. But they Do have the right to say it.

Embalmo

I'm going to have to respectively disagree with the "police force of one" idea. You cannot call for back-up, you cannot communicate with law enforcement and you will quite possible stir up a hornet's nest that could cause more collateral fatalities. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what personal protection is about and certainly not what is taught in our CHL training. Going out of your way to enter and participate in a gunfight is simply vigilantism and an absolute validation of how the left has portrayed us.

Even if we were just as well trained and experienced (like a combat vet) would a cop walk into a combat theatre alone without calling for back-up, armed with only a .40 caliber handgun and NO idea what's actually going on?

Embalmo

I specifically remember the instructor in my CHL class saying it is totally legal to use deadly force in defense of yourself or others. If I see someone in a library with an AK, shooting wildly, I can make a pretty quick assessment, and I cannot imagine a situation where more lives would be lost with me trying to stop a threat than by letting the shooter continue his killing. (If you had an AK, could you kill more people if one person with a handgun was trying to stop you, or if you were left to your own devices)

Imagine you're walking past a hall full of classrooms, and you hear shots fired an people screaming. If your only concern is your safety, then by all means, run away, and seek cover, but I would imagine the people being slaughtered by a madman might appreciate a good Samaritan, regardless of his own safety, attempting to eliminate the threat.

One of the reason's the columbine shooting was so deadly was because police formed a perimeter and waited for SWAT, allowing the killing to continue for a significant amount of time.

Zoomie wrote:Embalmo

I'm going to have to respectively disagree with the "police force of one" idea. You cannot call for back-up, you cannot communicate with law enforcement and you will quite possible stir up a hornet's nest that could cause more collateral fatalities. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what personal protection is about and certainly not what is taught in our CHL training. Going out of your way to enter and participate in a gunfight is simply vigilantism and an absolute validation of how the left has portrayed us.

Even if we were just as well trained and experienced (like a combat vet) would a cop walk into a combat theatre alone without calling for back-up, armed with only a .40 caliber handgun and NO idea what's actually going on?

Embalmo

I specifically remember the instructor in my CHL class saying it is totally legal to use deadly force in defense of yourself or others. If I see someone in a library with an AK, shooting wildly, I can make a pretty quick assessment, and I cannot imagine a situation where more lives would be lost with me trying to stop a threat than by letting the shooter continue his killing. (If you had an AK, could you kill more people if one person with a handgun was trying to stop you, or if you were left to your own devices)

Imagine you're walking past a hall full of classrooms, and you hear shots fired an people screaming. If your only concern is your safety, then by all means, run away, and seek cover, but I would imagine the people being slaughtered by a madman might appreciate a good Samaritan, regardless of his own safety, attempting to eliminate the threat.

One of the reason's the columbine shooting was so deadly was because police formed a perimeter and waited for SWAT, allowing the killing to continue for a significant amount of time.

So what you're saying is that CHLs know better than law enforcement, who were (one of) the reasons that so many died at Columbine? That is a dangerous, premise to base your ideas on. It is real easy for us to armchair after the fact, but you have to consider that the police had no idea what was going on (at the time); which is my exact point, one should never get into a gunfight without any information, communication, or back-up. Jumping in with no knowledge might get a CHL shot who was acting appropriately. I will never be convinced that it is ever a good idea to play police officer.

Embalmo

dicion wrote:
I'm totally going to steal this from AndyC.

If it's public ground, then they have a say because they are taxpayers that pay to support it just as much as anyone else.

.... doesn't mean we have to agree with what they say though. But they Do have the right to say it.

Guess I'm confused as to who "they" are -- and what "they" are saying...
Seems to me that if the school is tax-supported, then it is owned by the taxpayers -- making it government property, and should be treated as any other government property. Obviously, private schools (non-tax supported) are different.

Even if only some of the funds come from tax receipts, the rest from private sources, once you accept that first dollar, the institution should be covered like any other government facility.

I'd much rather chance being hit by a chl's fire than be a sitting duck in a room with a crazed guy with a (pick your weapon).

So what you're saying is that CHLs know better than law enforcement, who were (one of) the reasons that so many died at Columbine? That is a dangerous, premise to base your ideas on

I bet there are a lot of families that would have liked to see if a chl could have ended it sooner.

To think a chl could stop a shooter is just as valid as the anti's using the 'what if' argument that a chl may kill an innocent bystander. And if they did nothing... it's just like no one with a chl was there. And if an innocent person got shot, that would be tragic but no less tragic than all the others shot by the active shooter.

Well,

One fact we know.
A CHL, in obedience with the law, with a gun left in a car, can NOT stop a MASS shooter (Even though Dr. Suzanna Hupp wasn't a CHL, since there was no such thing at the time)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ggg0LwhrH0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9NDnqS5h9k&p" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Police arrived fairly quickly and set up perimeters, (like they still do), and had the situation "under control" ...(after the shooter killed himself) and after 23-24 people were killed, and another 20 wounded.
(There were about 80 people in there, even more would have died, if it had not been for TOMMY VAUGHN, a citizen, who jumped through a plate glass window, allowing 20 or 30 more people to escape.)