TexasCHLforum.com

As the OP for this thread, and trying to bring it back to the OP's question...

Does anyone here think that the proliferation of terrorist activity in the US and/or here in Texas could (if it happens) enable the reduction of gun free zones, such as those provided by 30.06/30.07 signs, schools, sporting events, etc?

I'm posting this on a new thread, so as not to hijack the one that gave me the idea.

I was reading the message about how Trump says, "Concealed Carry Permit Holders “Have An Obligation To Carry” In The Face Of Terrorism, and it got me thinking.

I'm glad Trump is in the race, because his presence is forcing a lot of conversations that I think most of the other candidates would have shunned (at best) or shut down (at worst) if someone more timid than he had brought it up.

I still think he's a buffoon, and I'm looking forward to when he gets out of the race so a more serious candidate with similar talking points (Cruz) can absorb some of his support base.

But on a related note...

This idea of an "Obligation To Carry In The Face Of Terrorism" does bring one thought to mind. Come 2017, if the ugly face of terrorism starts to show up more often in the US, I'd have to think that could be a selling point with the Texas Legislature on reducing and/or removing the quantity & effectiveness of 'gun free' zones in Texas.

We currently carry to protect ourselves in the face of a danger that likely won't manifest itself.

• Yep, I said it, the dangerous situations that we carry to protect ourselves against likely won't happen to most of us - ever. Most of us are not LEOs, and we live normal white-collar / blue collar lives where we don't seek out danger. As my signature line says, our, "number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation", and many of us practice that.
  
  Most of us truly expect that we'll be lying on our death bed someday thinking, "well, I carried that hunk of metal on my side all those years and never needed it after all...good thing". Like insurance, we hope and pray that we'll never need it, and for most of us, that will be true.
  
  Like it or not, the antis believe this as well, and many of them likely don't think any of us will ever use our guns for good. This forms a part of their argument for maintaining and promoting as many 'gun free' zones as possible (e.g. 30.06 posted places, schools, sporting events).

But we carry anyway, because like an Eagle Scout, it's best to Be Prepared in case that improbable, dangerous situation ever comes to fruition.

But if the danger becomes more real - if ISIS et. al. shows its ugly face in the form of repeated terrorist attacks - then the probability that we might need to have our handgun to protect ourselves (and others) increases. Assuming it becomes the "new normal" for citizens in the US to have to anticipate the next attack, then our legislators have to recognize that forcing us to disarm anywhere is really a bad thing.

Borrowing an idea from the lefties...never let a good crisis go to waste...we should be able to use this as one of our talking points with the lawmakers in 2017 (or 2019, or 2021, or whenever this new existence comes to be). Expansion of places where CHL holders can carry has long been a goal for us (and thanks to Mr. Cotton, Mrs Tripp, etc. for getting us closer every two years - in small, effective steps), but the growth of terrorism in our own country could help provide us with a more immediate justification to accelerate the process.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that terrorism never really grows here in the US. But if it does, I think we should exploit it as much as possible so we can best protect ourselves in the face of the more imminent threat.

Any thoughts?