TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I think someone should be able to safely load and unload the gun they choose to qualify with. There are tools that make it possible for anyone to load any magazine with very low effort. If someone is qualifying with a gun whose magazines they are not able to load easily, they should know about these tools and avail themselves of them.

I also think that people should be able to safely manipulate the slide of any gun they choose to qualify with.

I think I agree,
I believe every should be able to, but I don't believe their should be a legal requirement.

I'm conflicted on this myself. I could see a relatively minor change in the specified course requirements as being helpful.

Liberty wrote: Would you rather folks that are physically inhibited from charging their weapons not be armed.?

Absolutely not.

But I think people should be knowledgeable enough to select a gun that they can properly manipulate, and to avail themselves of some of the nice tools that are out there that make the job easier. It's all a matter of knowledge.

Liberty wrote: Please keep in mind that the perceived recoil in an equivilant revolver can is harsher than their semautomatic cousins.

Somewhat, but not an awful lot. And I find the recoil of 38 spl rounds to be quite manageable in small revolvers. If I can figure it out, anyone can.

Liberty wrote: It is easy to expect someone to have the same abilitys we do? but as long as they don't create a danger for the rest of us we should make allowances. We don't require that people should be able to change a tire or their own oil to get a drivers license , and we all know how dangerous they are.

I have physical problems myself. The day may come when I may have to lay my semi-autos down in favor of my SP101. So I fully appreciate where "the infirm" (for want of a better term) are coming from.

I think a small improvement in the course requirements could work wonders.

But for all of that, I am not seeing any news reports of CHL's accidently shooting themselves of others due to poor gun handling, so whatever "problem" there might be can't amount to a heck of a lot out in the real world.

I think someone should be able to safely load and unload the gun they choose to qualify with. There are tools that make it possible for anyone to load any magazine with very low effort. If someone is qualifying with a gun whose magazines they are not able to load easily, they should know about these tools and avail themselves of them.

I also think that people should be able to safely manipulate the slide of any gun they choose to qualify with.

Even more important, anyone goint to the line to qualify should be familiar with muzzle control. I was "muzzled" at my last renewal class, and had to push the muzzle off the line of my body myself. The person who muzzled me had a brand new gun that he had never fired. He obviously did not bother to read or comprehend the owner's manual either, because his problem was that he did not know how to lock the slide back. (It was a double action pistol with a decocker/safety, a slide lock, a mag release, and a takedown lever all on the left side of the gun.)

Since people can freely choose which gun they qualify with, I do not think it is too much to ask that they know the gun that they choose and choose a gun that they know. And they should certainly know and practice muzzle control at all times.

AEA wrote:I think the CHL requirements should be altered to include a short proficiency test of safe handling and shooting B4 anything else is done.

I remember in my first class that there were a lot of peeps that had never held a pistol and were pretty dangerous to themselves and others.
Also, in my recent renewal there was a lady back for her renewal and she could not even load her .380 mags or pull the slide back to chamber the first round! I had a brief conversation with her afterwards and she told me that she had never been to a range or shot since she first qualified 4 years earlier!

Really I think all instructors should do the Range portion of the course FIRST and weed out any that are that bad. They should require them to take a handgun training (familiarization) course b4 continuing with their CHL class.

Maybe 100 years ago this would not have been necessary, but the way people are (not) educated these days it sounds like a good idea to me.

I too believe that the RKBA is for every LAC. And I also believe that most people are raised with a decent knowledge of right and wrong, which in my book is the most important qualification for carrying a gun in public.

But it is also true that, unlike in times past, many people are not raised with the knowledge of safe gun handling taught at the family level. For all too many, all they know about guns is what they see in TV and movies - about 99% of which is wrong and/or dangerous.

Maybe having a course in safe gun handling as a requirement for public schools would be a remedy, but I don't see anything like this happening, especially in the "anti" states.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

It doesn't seem to be a problem for them up North.

That's well and good, but I'd be interested to see some answers to the questions I posed, especially #2 and #3 that seem to have been ignored.

So what do the people who favor VT / AK style carry (i.e. no CHL required, OC and CC OK, etc.) think of the above? With no license or proficiency requirement, do you think there would be more incompetent people carrying guns in public, or fewer? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?