TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah, we sort of speak in shorthand now and then It can get a little confusing so don't hesitate to ask. You will run across more of them. I still have to look at some a second or two to realize what it is referring to.

Buckaroo,

I hope you will spend more time with us and learn for yourself that while there may be some bravado here and there in posts, the vast majority of CHL holders are only concerned with protecting themselves legally and only to the extent necessary to stop an imminent threat. If you will check the data available from the DPS, you will find CHL holders are among the most law abiding of all groups of people. The laws can be confusing as to exactly when deadly force is defensible and when it isn't for some situations. The posts regarding those can invite more heated responses.

Please don't judge all by those few that sound like they may be too willing to shoot someone in what looks like a grey situation. A split decision must be made in an emergency and courts do judge the outcome if it was not clearly a warranted response. All who carry think about this a lot. Any instructor who teaches will tell you students are very concerned with the laws and they are seeking a means to protect themselves, not a means of being a vigilante, etc. Any time an Instructor feels a student is voicing alarming ideas to the contrary, he or she is encouraged by the DPS to notify them so they can investigate the applicant more deeply. If you don't already know the requirements to be able to obtain a license, it's a pretty long list. People who can't stay out of trouble don't qualify. The chl classes have a lot of older citizens and women too.

Welcome to our forum. I hope you will become a part of our community and please do ask any questions you may have. No one meant to offend you. We sometimes get new posters whose only desire is to cause an uproar. Since your initial posts were on two hot button subjects, it was natural to think perhaps you were one of those.

I think the law does all it can to allow for honest defense of life and property. To make the laws more stringent would result in innocent people being incarcerated. A criminal who makes the decision to perpetrate a crime on you has made the decision to endanger himself. It is a sad thing any time a person loses his life, but the law should give more leeway to the innocent citizen who defended him/herself than to the criminal who chose to act against them.

Perhaps the most difficult thing is to take the natural emotional reaction of righteous anger at being robbed and replace it with the cooler thinking of making sound tactical decisions. I admire the scenario Skiprr laid out and thank him for posting it. I, too, would like to use it as an example to pass along to others. I saw a story on tv a few years back where a young mother was sitting at a desk in her garage checking email in the early hours before dawn. She had raised the door only a small bit to let in cooler air. Suddenly a man slithered under the door and stood up. She instantly realized he would be able to enter the door into the house before she could intercept him. Her children slept in the house. She grabbed her handgun she had handily on her desk and fired a round that missed the guy by a hair. He dived back under the door and took off running. She rushed forward onto a belly position at the door and took aim on his fleeing back. She later said to the camera it was very very difficult to make her self not pull the trigger. She had him and would not have missed. The look on her face showed she was even surprised herself to find it that hard to control her urge to shoot once she felt her children threatened even though the guy was then running away. The ironic thing is she was a liaison for the NRA to legislators. Definitely the wrong garage for that guy to investigate.