HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now

[TVGuy]

All this over a statistical non-issue...

A discussion with a coworker resulted in us doing the math.

12000 Tyler Junior College student population
3000 For the sake of argument split the classes up evenly four ways allowing the seniors to be in the agegroup that can have a license
90 Roughly 3% of the states population has chosen to obtain a license
45 Polls have shown about half of license holders donnot carry on a regular basis

So, that is roughly 45 out of 12000 that might, statistically, be carrying a gun on a regular basis.

Add to that the fact that those 45 are 17 times less likely to break the law than the other 11955.

A statistical non-issue made out to be an unbelievable crisis!

But guns are evil and dangerous. It is not a matter of if, but WHEN. If there is just one on campus it WILL go on a rampage all by itself.

[joelamosobadiah]

All this over a statistical non-issue...

A discussion with a coworker resulted in us doing the math.

12000 Tyler Junior College student population
3000 For the sake of argument split the classes up evenly four ways allowing the seniors to be in the agegroup that can have a license
90 Roughly 3% of the states population has chosen to obtain a license
45 Polls have shown about half of license holders donnot carry on a regular basis

So, that is roughly 45 out of 12000 that might, statistically, be carrying a gun on a regular basis.

Add to that the fact that those 45 are 17 times less likely to break the law than the other 11955.

A statistical non-issue made out to be an unbelievable crisis!

But guns are evil and dangerous. It is not a matter of if, but WHEN. If there is just one on campus it WILL go on a rampage all by itself.

The anti's response would be something along the lines of "YES! So why risk 11,955 people's lives, just so the 45 can boost their gun-toting ego by carrying their killing machines with them all day!?!?"

[Jasonw560]

All this over a statistical non-issue...

A discussion with a coworker resulted in us doing the math.

12000 Tyler Junior College student population
3000 For the sake of argument split the classes up evenly four ways allowing the seniors to be in the agegroup that can have a license
90 Roughly 3% of the states population has chosen to obtain a license
45 Polls have shown about half of license holders donnot carry on a regular basis

So, that is roughly 45 out of 12000 that might, statistically, be carrying a gun on a regular basis.

Add to that the fact that those 45 are 17 times less likely to break the law than the other 11955.

A statistical non-issue made out to be an unbelievable crisis!

But guns are evil and dangerous. It is not a matter of if, but WHEN. If there is just one on campus it WILL go on a rampage all by itself.

So, here is my question: what happens to the mind of a person (who is cc'ing) between the time he pays for his pizza and sub at Young's Pizza in Kingsville, drives the 2 blocks, and steps on the TAMU-Kingsville campus that would turn them from a law-abiding citizen to a potential mass shooter?

[Jason K]

I quit watching after one or two of the "the teachers (professors) will be the targets if this bill is passed..." Um....this bill is geared towards you, dillweed.

My question to that kind of professor is, "What keeps someone from targeting you now?....a paper sign?" They must just like being helpless....

[Jasonw560]

I quit watching after one or two of the "the teachers (professors) will be the targets if this bill is passed..." Um....this bill is geared towards you, dillweed.

My question to that kind of professor is, "What keeps someone from targeting you now?....a paper sign?" They must just like being helpless....

Great point. What they don't realize is that if someone IS targeting them, the chance is LESS they would try something with the threat of a CHLer in the class.

[Bladed]

All this over a statistical non-issue...

A discussion with a coworker resulted in us doing the math.

12000 Tyler Junior College student population
3000 For the sake of argument split the classes up evenly four ways allowing the seniors to be in the agegroup that can have a license
90 Roughly 3% of the states population has chosen to obtain a license
45 Polls have shown about half of license holders donnot carry on a regular basis

So, that is roughly 45 out of 12000 that might, statistically, be carrying a gun on a regular basis.

Add to that the fact that those 45 are 17 times less likely to break the law than the other 11955.

A statistical non-issue made out to be an unbelievable crisis!

SCC has some statistics on the rate of licensure among Texans of typical college age:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr1337]

This firearm instructor wants to bring back the class for renewals. His business must be hurting from when the requirement was removed.

Did anyone catch his name? Let's leave his business some yelp reviews so that potential customers know how deep his support for the 2nd Amendment runs.

I didn't get it. We'll have to get it when the recording is posted.

Went back through and found him. His name is Ben Leal from Dallas, TX.

He confuses me. He says he's in support of Constitutional Carry, but he's asking for the renewal class to be brought back.

A quick Google search didn't bring up anything as far as a CHL class goes. Don't think I'd post it here even if it did as to avoid people harassing him. Since his name and testimony are public records though, you can search around if you really want.

[tlt]

Like everyone else, he has his own agenda. It would be very unprofessional for anyone to seek him out and say anything or post negative reviews regarding his testimony. Everyone who puts themselves out there to testify should be able to do so without any harassment. There are also lots of folks who disagree with OC supporters, particularly on this subject, folks should be on their best behavior and not hooting and hollering in the gallery for example.

I've met a ton of folks who do seek out additional training on their own if they feel they need it. So, I don't think it needs to be forced in to form of more requirements, that's just my opinion. He probably sees people that scare him, and need more training, and that's his opinion.

[Jason K]

Like everyone else, he has his own agenda. It would be very unprofessional for anyone to seek him out and say anything or post negative reviews regarding his testimony. Everyone who puts themselves out there to testify should be able to do so without any harassment. There are also lots of folks who disagree with OC supporters, particularly on this subject, folks should be on their best behavior and not hooting and hollering in the gallery for example.

I've met a ton of folks who do seek out additional training on their own if they feel they need it. So, I don't think it needs to be forced in to form of more requirements, that's just my opinion. He probably sees people that scare him, and need more training, and that's his opinion.

Why not? Shouldn't someone who is considering use of his services know what kind of person he/she is doing business with? I'm not suggesting that he be harassed or slandered.....just state the fact of his testimony and public position.

Caveat emptor.....

[Salty1]

This firearm instructor wants to bring back the class for renewals. His business must be hurting from when the requirement was removed.

I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

[mojo84]

This firearm instructor wants to bring back the class for renewals. His business must be hurting from when the requirement was removed.

I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

The answer to keeping up with the changes is to read and participate in this forum.

Consider this. How do people get word of other changes in laws and regulations? Those same ways work for this situation.

[TexasCajun]

Like everyone else, he has his own agenda. It would be very unprofessional for anyone to seek him out and say anything or post negative reviews regarding his testimony. Everyone who puts themselves out there to testify should be able to do so without any harassment. There are also lots of folks who disagree with OC supporters, particularly on this subject, folks should be on their best behavior and not hooting and hollering in the gallery for example.

I've met a ton of folks who do seek out additional training on their own if they feel they need it. So, I don't think it needs to be forced in to form of more requirements, that's just my opinion. He probably sees people that scare him, and need more training, and that's his opinion.

Why not? Shouldn't someone who is considering use of his services know what kind of person he/she is doing business with? I'm not suggesting that he be harassed or slandered.....just state the fact of his testimony and public position.

Caveat emptor.....

All things may not be as they appear. Just because he says he's an instructor does not make it so. It's quite possible that this guy is an anti in disguise. During the senate committee testimony on SB17 and SB11, a representative from the nanny-mayor's mom group flat out lied about the availability of chl crime statistics. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone from that side would testify as someone/something that they are not.

But even if he is an instructor, he's entitled to his opinion just as the rest of us are. And just because we happen to disagree with that opinion, does not give any of us the right to search him out for harassment. In fact, doing so kinda smells to me like the tantrums that the moms throw when a retailer or restaurant decides that they don't want to play politics.

[treadlightly]

I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

McLennan County Sheriff Parnell McNamara, who testified so eloquently on the side of the angels to the Senate committee, is a CHL instructor. I think when the laws change I might go through his class just to hear what he has to say. He's a former US Marshall, a sitting Sheriff, and has no problem with law abiding citizens taking responsibility for self-defense.

A heck of a nice guy, in other words.

[locke_n_load]

This firearm instructor wants to bring back the class for renewals. His business must be hurting from when the requirement was removed.

I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

Nothing is stopping them from retaking the CHL class if they feel the need to. Some of us keep up with the law changes, shoot regularly, and have no need to sit in on an official class. No need to force a renewal class on others. If the laws change, you don't keep up with them, and you break them, tough.

[Paragrouper]

I have spoken with many CHL holders who wish they did not remove the renewal training requirement. Unless every CHL holder stays on top of new legislation they have no idea of what changes have been made and the renewal classes provided this information. CHL instructors are looking for new ways to generate revenues since the removal of mandatory renewal training has gone away. The prices of CHL classes has dropped so those who own their own facilities and ranges need to replace that revenue stream. Personally I would have no issues if renewal training came back and I am not an instructor.

I would agree. periodic refresher training is a good way to ensure the CHL population is made aware of any changes to the laws that may impact on how or where they carry. We are all responsible for our actions; training helps us all to better understand those responsibilities under the law.