TexasCHLforum.com

brianko wrote:

I find it vaguely unsettling that you've chosen to try and twist the discussion around to what amounts to you questioning my own abilities.

My response was clearly made within the context of the discussion. But if you feel inclined to take my position completely out of context (as you have here), then you and I have nothing further to discuss.

I understand that some will take great personal affront to this statement, but then again, those are the same individuals that argue from a point of passion rather than a point of reason.

Finally: Reasoned debate rather than personal attacks.

And trying to shift focus on the person, rather than the issue, is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to divert attention away from the issue (maybe in the hopes that it will just go away?)

He we go again: Attack the messenger because you don't like the message, rather than debate the argument itself.

Let me get this straight: You obviously have no good argument to counter my stance, so therefore you decide to dig up some "dirt" on me and post it as an indictment of my character and integrity?

I really do expect to be treated better by those with whom I share similar visions (namely, full recognition of our rights under the 2nd Amendment). Just because you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the same issue does not mean that either of us have the right to personally attack the other (whether the attack is implied or direct).

Whether or not you agree with me, I take it as a personal attack when someone uses the pronoun "you" in conjunction with a derogatory statement about how I feel about a certain class of individuals.

Really, what's the point of this exercise? Yet another attempt to discredit my position based upon a faulty understanding of nonprofit organizations? This is all so rather pointless. Here's a challenge: Why not argue your position without the use of personal attacks and other intentional efforts to change the subject?

Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little “thin skinned” or sensitive?

With the exception of one or two…you seem to have accused everyone here of “attacking” you or trying to “change the subject”.

The same time and effort spent penning the “pearls” above….could have been used to provide us with simple answers to our simple questions.

One thing I agree with Brianko is that training's a great idea. If armed educators gets to be commonplace, I think it'd be great for someone(like the NRA or a big training center) to sponsor training for teachers in a school environment.

Of course trained is always preferable to untrained. However, armed still trumps helpless.

flintknapper wrote: Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little “thin skinned” or sensitive?

I'd say that's a label that I've never heard anyone use about me!

The same time and effort spent penning the “pearls” above….could have been used to provide us with simple answers to our simple questions.

I have. They're in this thread. In fact, if you do a reverse sort by date, and work your way down a couple of postings, you'll find my position clearly restated for those late to the show.

But despite my posting extensively about my position, I've yet to hear a response to my latest challenge: Why do you believe state-mandated CHL training is the only training needed by CHL holders to handle situations involving a school gunman, when it's clear LE agencies are actively engaged in training their officers in tactics involving the same?

sar wrote:If armed educators gets to be commonplace, I think it'd be great for someone(like the NRA or a big training center) to sponsor training for teachers in a school environment.

Based upon lucid arguments made by srothstein, Excaliber, and a few others (sorry, didn't have time to go back through the thread for all the related arguments), I'm considering modifying my position in terms of the type of additional training that might be warranted. They and others correctly point out that CHL holders won't be expected to take an active role in locating and confronting a gunman unless the situation presents itself in an immediate way. (Disclaimer: This is a synopsis of the arguments made; please don't wordsmith my summary and try to call me out because I missed a salient point these folks have made. It is not my intention to misquote or misrepresent anything they've said.)

Of course trained is always preferable to untrained. However, armed still trumps helpless.

I agree 100%!

brianko wrote:But despite my posting extensively about my position, I've yet to hear a response to my latest challenge: Why do you believe state-mandated CHL training is the only training needed by CHL holders to handle situations involving a school gunman, when it's clear LE agencies are actively engaged in training their officers in tactics involving the same?

How about, because CHL/Teachers can be at the schools where and when they are needed. They are needed in schools, now. Not in a month or a year or until some committee or non-profit organization develops an approved training curriculum. Do you want more dead bodies to stack up just because the CHL/Teacher doesn't have the proper diploma or certificate that says they are qualified to shoot a mass murderer?

We're discussing CHL carry in schools, are we not?

Yes, and you've been asked repeatedly, and to this point refused to articulate *why* you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between carry in schools, and carry in malls, daycare facilities, office buildings, or anywhere else it is legal. Do you have a reason?

I'm interested in this question.

And is the answer different for colleges?

brianko wrote:

The same time and effort spent penning the “pearls” above….could have been used to provide us with simple answers to our simple questions.

I have. They're in this thread. In fact, if you do a reverse sort by date, and work your way down a couple of postings, you'll find my position clearly restated for those late to the show.

No you haven't. You've danced around the periphery, accused people of attacking you, and just generally avoided explaining *why* you hold the position you do.

Again, answer this question directly, please. In your words, why should a CHL holder be held to a different standard to carry in a school than in a commercial day care, or a mall, or an office building?

Russell wrote:Just wanted to let everybody here know that Sam Houston State University will be conducting an Active Shooter scenario soon on campus, and I will be involved. I will for sure be setting the cameras and computers up that will be recording it (I work for LEMIT), and I am trying to get involved as either one of the CHL's, or shooters.

What a fantastic opportunity! Obviously, SHSU see the need for this level of training. I think it's great that they are including CHLs as well.

brianko wrote:

My argument has always been that there are certain situations in campus incidents that require additional training beyond that of the typical CHL training.

No Sir, you have never qualified your previous statements with this stipulation, if you had…you would have been met with immediate agreement by nearly everyone here.

If anything, the argument that's being made by those on this thread who are in the majority denigrates the standing of LEOs in our community. The position somehow implies that LEOs might benefit from additional training, while CHLs need no such additional training.

Actually, what we are saying is that LEO (owing to their profession) need to be as highly trained and diverse as possible. Everyone would agree that additional training for CHL’s is a desirable thing, but we do not want it “mandated”. You seem fixated on the false idea that we want (or expect) teachers with CHL’s to assume the role of LEO.

My argument is the opposite: CHLs are not the equivalent of LEOs, and therefore do not have the proper training needed to respond to the unique environment of educational institutions.

The “unique” environment of our schools consists basically of many people being in a fairly small area. Presumably, your concern is over the possibility of collateral damage, or of an “untrained” person just making matters worse.

If this is so, then let us not stop with just schools. Doubtless, you take exception to the State allowing minimally trained CHL holders to go to a movie theatre, to church, to the grocery store, attend a concert, enter an elevator, ride a bus, etc……

Somehow, all of us bumbling dolts….have managed to do these things... because we possess more common sense than you give us credit for. As unbelievable as it may seem to you, most CHL’s DO know when it would be appropriate to engage a threat, and when NOT to. I believe that teachers (as a whole) are more than capable of this as well.

Xander wrote:

brianko wrote:

The same time and effort spent penning the “pearls” above….could have been used to provide us with simple answers to our simple questions.

I have. They're in this thread. In fact, if you do a reverse sort by date, and work your way down a couple of postings, you'll find my position clearly restated for those late to the show.

No you haven't. You've danced around the periphery, accused people of attacking you, and just generally avoided explaining *why* you hold the position you do.

My position is a culmination of several posts that have been made over the past few days. And, as I've pointed out, I'm considering changing my stance with regards to training requirements. I've made justifications for each statement I've posted. If for some reason you're unable or unwilling to work your way back through the thread, then maybe you should just sit this debate out.

Again, answer this question directly, please. In your words, why should a CHL holder be held to a different standard to carry in a school than in a commercial day care, or a mall, or an office building?

Asked and answered. Really, do your homework. It's all there for you to see.

Russell wrote:Just wanted to let everybody here know that Sam Houston State University will be conducting an Active Shooter scenario soon on campus, and I will be involved. I will for sure be setting the cameras and computers up that will be recording it (I work for LEMIT), and I am trying to get involved as either one of the CHL's, or shooters.

It'll be a live scenario where actual police officers will be called in to a arrest/neutralize a shooter/shooters that will be going from room to room with a most likely a paintball gun. There will be embedded CHLers within the rooms that will also have the task of attempting to take out the shooter when they feel they can. The officers will not know who is the shooter(s) and who is the CHL'ers.

Good stuff, and it will be very interesting to see how it turns out!

Fantastic! I'd like to see the same thing done WITHOUT the embedded CHL' s and compare the casualties.

brianko wrote:
I really do expect to be treated better by those with whom I share similar visions (namely, full recognition of our rights under the 2nd Amendment). Just because you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the same issue does not mean that either of us have the right to personally attack the other (whether the attack is implied or direct).

Let me see if I can get through this post without any personal attacks before the definition of personal attacks changes.

The argument that requires additional training to arm oneself in schools is not what I consider supporting the second amendment. Requiring additional training is in fact an infringement to the second amendment.

I do not ever recall being told that any of my positions on any discussion on this forum ever did not support the second amendment.

How did I do?

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

brianko wrote:
I really do expect to be treated better by those with whom I share similar visions (namely, full recognition of our rights under the 2nd Amendment). Just because you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the same issue does not mean that either of us have the right to personally attack the other (whether the attack is implied or direct).

Let me see if I can get through this post without any personal attacks before the definition of personal attacks changes.

The argument that requires additional training to arm oneself in schools is not what I consider supporting the second amendment. Requiring additional training is in fact an infringement to the second amendment.

I do not ever recall being told that any of my positions on any discussion on this forum ever did not support the second amendment.

How did I do?

Anygunanywhere

Certainly no "personal attacks".

But dog-gone-it...you "changed the subject".

After all ..."we are talking about teachers carrying in schools, aren't we".

flintknapper wrote:brianko wrote:

My argument has always been that there are certain situations in campus incidents that require additional training beyond that of the typical CHL training.

No Sir, you have never qualified your previous statements with this stipulation, if you had…you would have been met with immediate agreement by nearly everyone here.

Really? Then let the record show that "certain situations" refer to the scenarios I've posted about in several previous posts; namely, a gunman on campus. If I knew it was that easy, I would have fixed my oversight a long time ago!

Actually, what we are saying is that LEO (owing to their profession) need to be as highly trained and diverse as possible. Everyone would agree that additional training for CHL’s is a desirable thing, but we do not want it “mandated”. You seem fixated on the false idea that we want (or expect) teachers with CHL’s to assume the role of LEO.

I've since modified my position, see previous posts.

The “unique” environment of our schools consists basically of many people being in a fairly small area. Presumably, your concern is over the possibility of collateral damage, or of an “untrained” person just making matters worse.

As I stated in my original post, which some other folks seem to be at a loss to find.

If this is so, then let us not stop with just schools. Doubtless, you take exception to the State allowing minimally trained CHL holders to go to a movie theatre, to church, to the grocery store, attend a concert, enter an elevator, ride a bus, etc……

I do not have an issue with CHL carry in the other venues you list (venues which I am quite comfortable carrying in). I choose to debate only schools, because that is the domain I know best, and am most familiar with. I see students compacted in schools in ways that I don't see happening in theaters, churches, or stores, because quite often there is a lower density of individuals in these areas than in some schools. I also believe, although I have only anecdotal evidence to back this up, that the group dynamics of 2500 students aged 14-18 (or thereabouts) is probably quite a bit different from the group dynamics of a group of shoppers or theatergoers. I can say with some certainty that the collective maturity of said school group will most likely be lower than that of a typical group of shoppers or theatergoers, and this might require some additional training on the part of CHL holders. I can see a group of students reacting in ways that might be completely unexpected by an unsuspecting CHL holder who is not prepared for it.

In case the point has been lost: I'm all for CHL carry anywhere and everywhere, but with some reservations (not exceptions). In the case of schools, I believe some level of training would be beneficial for the safety of our children. Anyone who finds fault with this simply doesn't understand the bond most teachers have with their students.

Somehow, all of us bumbling dolts….have managed to do these things... because we possess more common sense than you give us credit for. As unbelievable as it may seem to you, most CHL’s DO know when it would be appropriate to engage a threat, and when NOT to. I believe that teachers (as a whole) are more than capable of this as well.

Your words and thoughts, not mine.