TexasCHLforum.com

johnson0317 wrote:

Actually, it is common sense passed along by the pro-gun community, including people like Ayoob and Bird. It makes sense that the BG is going to first go for those people who pose an obvious threat, and that would includes LEOs and anyone openly carrying. It is also advisable to not wear the obvious NRA attire, fanny packs, photog jackets, and so on. On the other hand, he might get my open open carry weapon, but he will only get part of my concealed carry one...the subsonic part.[/quote]
I am not going to get into an open carry versus concealed carry digression in this thread, so I ignored your first post on the topic. But since you've now asserted that twice, I'll simply say many reasonable people reach the opposite conclusion. Predators seeks the weakest prey. Over the years, I've read far, far more reports where open carry deterred the crime and only one report where the guy was targeted because he was open carrying. Neither approach is a guarantee against mayhem, since there are always probabilities involved. But I have assessed those odds in depth, as I chose to open carry for years before moving to Texas.

wharvey wrote:I'll add something that I'm sure will be disagreed with. Why a training requirement at all? There are states that have no training requirement. Pay your fee, pass the background, and your license is mailed to you. Indiana is like that and there were no stories of blood running in the streets due to untrained people carrying guns. Should you get training, most certainly, but requiring it?. . .

I agree with your post.

As far as training is concerned, I view it as just one more example of the difference between accepting personal responsibility versus expecting the nanny-state to do everything.

I'll agree with anyone who says carrying a firearm is a large responsibility, and that a prudent person should make sure they train themselves in gun safety, gun handling, gun laws, etc.

However, the state requiring the training? No thanks.

For those people who say, "well if the person doesn't take any training then they might . . . (complete the sentence with any action)". Yeah, that's true. But in a culture where people still accepted responsibility for their own actions, they are also aware that actions have consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

If a person didn't get training and thus didn't know that you have to chamber a round with a semi-auto pistol, then they are carrying around a small club and might get killed. Oh well, actions have consequences.

An alternate solution I'd love to see to the "Utah" problem would be "Constitutional Carry".

Any citizen who is allowed to possess firearms could legally should be allowed to carry anything, openly or concealed, without require a license or a tax from the state.

Not saying that will pass anytime soon, but I can always have hope for the future. After all, I still believe in "shall not be infringed".