Would you go through more CHL training?

[Embalmo]

Guys,

When I deal with people who make ridiculous arguments against campus carry, ect., like, "People will just start shooting each other, over grades," I often ask them why they are fine with police officers carrying because we actually go through the same, if not more more stringent criminal background screening process.

My question is: Would you guys go through more training, and even possibly as much as LEO gun training if it meant being able to carry everywhere, and if it would make anti-gunners shut up? I certainly would, if, and only if the price of the licensure didn't increase.

Embalmo

[gwashorn]

OK, yes I would take the training and already do as I am able with the NRA programs because I feel it is important, a responsibility and of course, I enjoy it. However, I have an issue with how hard government could make it to carry if that was a "requirement". Double edged sword here I think. And to have different levels of civilian carry over LEOs makes it harder to handle as well. Hard fence to balance but good question for thought.

Gary

[Beiruty]

Why not? the more training the better.

[karl]

Absolutely, for several reasons. With advanced training and practice I would boast faster draw and response time and would be more accurate and comfortable with my handgun while keeping people I'm not trying to shoot out of the picture. I don't really care how others perceive me but care more about how others perceive the CC movement.

On the other hand I think being able to carry anywhere would violate the rights of a private business owner who is foolish enough to post a 30.06. If you REALLY don't want a gun in your establishment, for whatever reason, I think you should be able to restrict that. I also think that obtaining a legal 30.06 sign in your window should be made a bit more thought provoking so business owners truly understand who they're prohibiting and why the gun community doesn't think it's a good idea. The more people that obtain CHL's means less and less business for those that post.

[Embalmo]

Guys,

I disagree with businesses legally having 30.06, profusely. My right to defend myself is imposed upon when a 30.06 sign is posted; I would compare it to not being allowed to carry my rescue inhaler, hearts meds, or insulin (all I really need is the inhaler, but you get the point). Now if there were a way to really keep bad guys from carrying, like LEOs and medal detectors, then it would be a debate that we're not having at the present; I disagree with my rights being infringed upon so some people can play pretend fantasy games. I'm sure there's a high percentage of the 30.06 posters who would love to include LEOs in the ban, and would disband the U.S. military, but since they legally cannot, does that mean their rights are being infringed upon?

Embalmo

[shortysboy09]

I would have no objection to more training for a CHL. After what I saw in some of the students in my CHL class the nicest term to describe their gun-handling skills is "Questionable". We had a guy that loaded every shell in his clip backwards, then he tried to insert the clip in the gun backwards. That was a scary moment.

I do agree with you Embalmo that it is an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights as citizens of the USA.

As far as business owners that don't want guns on their property...

The firearm is CONCEALED. They would never know who did and didn't have a gun on their person. And the only time they would ever see the gun would be in a life and death situation. At that point, the owner wouldn't be whining about you bringing a gun into his/her facility after you stopped a threat to you, him, and all his patrons. It just doesn't make sense why someone would want to take a gun away from the good guy and promote BG's bringing in illegal weapons because they know they will be the only one there with a gun. ( Which they were going to bring in regardless of a 30.06 sign or not )

[Dragonfighter]

The firearm is CONCEALED. They would never know who did and didn't have a gun on their person. And the only time they would ever see the gun would be in a life and death situation. At that point, the owner wouldn't be whining about you bringing a gun into his/her facility after you stopped a threat to you, him, and all his patrons.

Oh yeah they would. Just ask those that were fired because they were lawfully carrying and defended themselves and others. I would like to see owners that post 30.06 be held to a standard of liability, I.E. providing armed security and escort or face civil liability...however that would have to be done legislatively. I think the argument as it stands now would be, "Were you forced to go in there to do business? Are there not other locations that offer the same services that do not forbid concealed carry?" At that point I believe they would simply argue you were operating under an assumed risk.

[Shorts]

I would love more training ON MY OWN SCHEDULE, AT MY LEISURE AND NOT AS A PREREQUISITE TO OBTAINING OR RENEWING. But not to satisfy the antis. I want to get my skills up for my own satisfaction. Just like any athlete, go to practice to kick butt in the game

[shortysboy09]

The firearm is CONCEALED. They would never know who did and didn't have a gun on their person. And the only time they would ever see the gun would be in a life and death situation. At that point, the owner wouldn't be whining about you bringing a gun into his/her facility after you stopped a threat to you, him, and all his patrons.

Oh yeah they would. Just ask those that were fired because they were lawfully carrying and defended themselves and others. I would like to see owners that post 30.06 be held to a standard of liability, I.E. providing armed security and escort or face civil liability...however that would have to be done legislatively. I think the argument as it stands now would be, "Were you forced to go in there to do business? Are there not other locations that offer the same services that do not forbid concealed carry?" At that point I believe they would simply argue you were operating under an assumed risk.

Some people....

These people just live in a little fantasy world where they think BG's pay attention to signs. Very sad.

[Zee]

I heard about a guy who shot someone in Reno, just to watch him die.

[casingpoint]

Absolutely no to further training requirements. Criminals have it hard enough as it is. I get any better than I am, I'll have to go on neighborhood watch patrol just to satisfy the urge.

[C-dub]

I would go through more training to be able to carry everywhere an on-duty LEO does. I would also go through as much handgun training as an LEO. I would also pay more for a license that would allow me to carry concealed at work with immunity from being fired because of it. I know this last one's a tough one here in Texas, but if there were a way to do it I would. Then I would truly be 18/7. I gotta sleep sometime, but even then it is within an arms length.

[garcia946]

I would , them more training makes me that much better at what I do and what I can teach my students.

[joe817]

I would too. I don't need any more target practice to be proficient, but it sure is fun. What I would like is defensive training drills, over and above punching paper.

[basher052]

Guys,

I disagree with businesses legally having 30.06, profusely. My right to defend myself is imposed upon when a 30.06 sign is posted

Have you ever been forced to go somewhere that is 30.06 posted? If not, why do you think you have a right to be on that property at all?

Now if there were a way to really keep bad guys from carrying, like LEOs and medal detectors, then it would be a debate that we're not having at the present...

You mean like the state prison where the recent escapee (allegedly) had a gun smuggled in?

You beat me to the punch on this one. This has always been my argument on the smoking ban (im not a smoker by the way). But my question is this, why should the city (Houston) have the right to stop any restaurant from allowing smoking? If you are a non-smoker, you dont have to eat at that particular establishment. Same in this case. You may not like the 30.06 rule, but you dont have to eat or shop there either.