CHL requirements

[mreavis]

We probably agree on a lot then. I also would prefer to throw murders, rapist, children and maybe a few other groups in aside from mentally disabled though. You know when it comes to cars and guns. The things that actually DO kill many people. Not hypothetical pencil deaths.

[RPB]

We probably agree on a lot then. I also would prefer to throw murders, rapist, children and maybe a few other groups in aside from mentally disabled though. You know when it comes to cars and guns. The things that actually DO kill many people. Not hypothetical pencil deaths.

Don't discount pencils and scissors as "hypothetical" when they are weapons of choice in Australia since they banned carrying knives.

murderers and such should not own guns imho, but children who were properly trained, I got my first gun at age 5, Church youth groups enjoy them, TPWD has a hunting camp for kids and teaches safety and gets them out shooting ducks, 4H club here has gun contests, YMCA does, in the city 13 miles from me a 14 year old girl won a National Championship shooting against adults, I have no problem with kids having guns as long as they are trained.

Like I said, I'm all for training.

http://www.thepicayunetv.com/index.php? ... Itemid=401" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Marble Falls High School freshman (9th grade now) easily qualifies as a top competitor. Though she only started shooting in fourth grade, Katie Bridges’ passion has helped her grow into a nationally known presence in shooting circles.

She was a late-starter, didn't shoot until 4th grade, but came right along.
I wouldn't mind being trained by some of the kids around here.
Every week we have pictures in the paper of 7 year old girls to 14 year old girls holding heads of deer they shot.

[mreavis]

This is no where near a well organized discussion. Apparently we are both for training. You just need to jump around on little details to make this hard.

You don't give a gun to a 5 or 9 year old without knowing they are trained. Ignoring the fact that children are still developing decision making processes and assuming it was ONLY about ability; yes it would be fine for a 5 year old who was trained to have a gun. But you don't assume the 5 year old is trained just like you don't assume the adult is trained.

So I guess we agree. The CHL training is a good idea. Letting anyone who felt like it carry a gun is not.

And pencils and scissors really have not killed anywhere close to the amount of people things like guns and cars (which require licenses to use in most places) have.

[RPB]

well, I'd need to add axes in Au, ... cars are used by gangs to gain entry into houses, then scissors and axes. It isn't a rare occurrence.

It was unfair of me to mention baseball bats, because that's only here, in Au they use cricket bats ... that isn't a rare occurrence either.

But combining groups of law abiding trained people with criminals isn't fair of me either. I was just pointing out tools...

However if we go back to Cain and Abel, and count all who were stoned to death in various middle eastern countries, I bet more were killed with stones than guns, perhaps some were used in self-defense too, and hardly any training required.

But yes, we agree on training. I already stated I'm against increased prices.

[LikesShinyThings]

However if someone is NOT capable of understanding what those items are. And they think they are toys or jokes or simply cannot show decent operation of them. Than they should not have them. It infringes upon my right to live life in a reasonably managed area.

Where do you get this "right to live life in a reasonably managed area"? No, that is NOT a right. Not inherent due to existence; not guaranteed by the US Constitution nor any of the amendments. This is a manufactured "right" and doesn't hold water. Try again.

I don't want people armed in public community areas without showing understanding of the rules and procedure. I know everyone won't agree, I just don't see any good argument besides "Its my right". Yea, well its my right not to get shot by some moron we let carry a gun in public when he clearly had no business doing so.

How many times have you been shot at by "some moron we let carry a gun"? If it is more than once, please let me know where you are so I can be somewhere else. Better yet, cite me statistics of this happening - what percentage of CHL holders have negligent/accidental discharge in public? What percentage have hit an innocent bystander? And please, compare that to the number of criminals out there who have intentionally but negligently fired their firearms in public, with no concern at all for who might be hit.

But we're back to the "thought police" here, and punishing someone (denying them right to carry) just because YOU are afraid they might do something stupid. Just because you personally seem to think they lack the skill/knowledge/decision making ability to be safe with a gun does not mean they will be reckless or dangerous with one. If we take that reasoning to it's logical extension, and to devolve into what is apparently your favorite argument, we would ban driving to everyone who has ever had even the most minor car accident while driving, because obviously they are incapable of handling a vehicle in a safe fashion, and they might just run over someone some day. Actually, I take that back - we would deny driving to everyone. Because I don't know a single person who has done any measurable amount of driving who hasn't had at least one occasion where, given the wrong circumstances, they could have seriously injured someone else. So by your same "some moron we let xxx" logic, driving should be outlawed.

A final thought: I would much rather license 100 of these "potentially incompetent" handgun owners for concealed carry, than deny just one of those who are poor or untrained from the ability to carry a firearm with them, an ability that just may very well save their life. Not all of us have a good, non-abusive spouse, nor make enough to afford to get licensed even as the fees stand now, nor live in a safe part of town. For those I say it is unfair and wrong to make the concealed licensing so prohibitive that they either have to break the law or go about their (danger filled) lives without the ability to meet force with force.

I know I'm talking to a wall. You have made it abundantly clear that you have your beliefs and you are not about to change them. So be it. Maybe someone else will find some value in my points.

[RPB]

I'm all for training, I think it should be government subsidized, along with free range time, and discounted subsidized ammo monthly. Licenses should me about the same price as a driver's license, to cover production/Administrative costs only.

I miss the Pasadena Police Dept range I used to use free, but I much prefer where I live now than the "big city" where I used to ride my bike out to see the cows at Westheimer where 610 is now and shoot my bow and arrow where Meyerland is now..

[baldeagle]

We have a principle in this country that we would rather set a hundred guilty men free than to imprison one innocent man. Some of you might think about that in the context of our rights. Wouldn't you rather have 100 law-abiding morons carrying guns than to have one law-abiding citizen denied the right to carry one? The desire to deny other people rights and privileges that you yourself treasure because you think they are not worthy has its roots in totalitarianism. The rights you want to deny someone else today may be all the justification someone with real power needs to deny you the rights you treasure tomorrow. Big things begin with small steps.

[mreavis]

However if someone is NOT capable of understanding what those items are. And they think they are toys or jokes or simply cannot show decent operation of them. Than they should not have them. It infringes upon my right to live life in a reasonably managed area.

Where do you get this "right to live life in a reasonably managed area"? No, that is NOT a right. Not inherent due to existence; not guaranteed by the US Constitution nor any of the amendments. This is a manufactured "right" and doesn't hold water. Try again.

I don't want people armed in public community areas without showing understanding of the rules and procedure. I know everyone won't agree, I just don't see any good argument besides "Its my right". Yea, well its my right not to get shot by some moron we let carry a gun in public when he clearly had no business doing so.

How many times have you been shot at by "some moron we let carry a gun"? If it is more than once, please let me know where you are so I can be somewhere else. Better yet, cite me statistics of this happening - what percentage of CHL holders have negligent/accidental discharge in public? What percentage have hit an innocent bystander? And please, compare that to the number of criminals out there who have intentionally but negligently fired their firearms in public, with no concern at all for who might be hit.

But we're back to the "thought police" here, and punishing someone (denying them right to carry) just because YOU are afraid they might do something stupid. Just because you personally seem to think they lack the skill/knowledge/decision making ability to be safe with a gun does not mean they will be reckless or dangerous with one. If we take that reasoning to it's logical extension, and to devolve into what is apparently your favorite argument, we would ban driving to everyone who has ever had even the most minor car accident while driving, because obviously they are incapable of handling a vehicle in a safe fashion, and they might just run over someone some day. Actually, I take that back - we would deny driving to everyone. Because I don't know a single person who has done any measurable amount of driving who hasn't had at least one occasion where, given the wrong circumstances, they could have seriously injured someone else. So by your same "some moron we let xxx" logic, driving should be outlawed.

A final thought: I would much rather license 100 of these "potentially incompetent" handgun owners for concealed carry, than deny just one of those who are poor or untrained from the ability to carry a firearm with them, an ability that just may very well save their life. Not all of us have a good, non-abusive spouse, nor make enough to afford to get licensed even as the fees stand now, nor live in a safe part of town. For those I say it is unfair and wrong to make the concealed licensing so prohibitive that they either have to break the law or go about their (danger filled) lives without the ability to meet force with force.

I know I'm talking to a wall. You have made it abundantly clear that you have your beliefs and you are not about to change them. So be it. Maybe someone else will find some value in my points.

First off living in a reasonably managed world is something almost all humans strive for. Its a large difference in first and third world countries. I thought that was a given, forgive me for not explaining.

Every post is me arguing that there SHOULD be training and SHOULD be licensing for concealed handgun carrying. Before you run off and quote me to look like I don't support the idea, understand, it was exactly what I was arguing FOR. Just that there be reasonable testing as well. Like with cars.

And you need to watch your "yous". I was only ever speaking about my opinion on how the STATES testing should be. No one should ever come to me and ask if they can have a CHL. That obviously isn't how it works. You don't get to decide who is perfectly competent either but someone has too right? The exact reason for the classes and licensing requirements is so I don't ever have to get shot by that moron who got a CHL. Thats why I was arguing for them. I disagreed completely with raising the price and said only maybe the written and shooting test could be a bit harder. That is an opinion, not a fact.

We don't take away CHL's for accidental discharges at the range or even in public. I fail to see the relevance of your argument about taking cars away for minor car accidents. We take cars away for repeatedly horrible drivers and drunks. We take guns away from violent criminals and mentally ill. And if god forbid you cannot pass the DPS shooting test. You cannot get a concealed license.

Now of course we are all entitled to our opinions and I respect yours. The last paragraph you wrote was an actual response to the topic. Touche.

For the most part though a lot of people here need to slow down or start rereading. They fly off topic like its going out of style.

[longtooth]

Getting a little heated & bordering on getting personal.
About to get locked if it does not cool

Have a great day.
LT

[sjfcontrol]

Probably should be locked. Seems a bit trollish to me.

[LikesShinyThings]

And you need to watch your "yous".

You're right I did get a little personal, and I really shouldn't have. I truly apologize for that. Nor did I intend to slant/skew/misrepresent your previous posts. For any of that which might have been perceived, I also apologize.

[mreavis]

Oh its all good. I apologize if I made the same mistake at any point. I totally respect everyones different opinions. And I really think you brought up some valid points at the end. Again I apologize if I got to heated as well. I was more concerned with I felt like I was being totally miss understood about what I was saying.

Good debate, good points, have a good one everybody :)

[texanron]

I guess the shows over.....

[BLG]

im just saying there are too many people who have a chl who dont deserve one ...

I'm guessing these people would disagree.

George Washington, George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, James McHenry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Blair, James Madison, Jr., William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson, John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris

Sorry folks, I came to this thread from a newr one and got called away,so I forgot which I was reading.
but it sounded good, soI think I'll leave it



Add my name to the list.

Everyone, including convicted felons(having served their sentence) has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This requires the right to defend said life. In turn, that requires the right to prepare an effective defense. Whether and how well one prepares is up to him, not me, or the state.

Might this present some danger from the inexperienced or ignorant? Yes. Could that possibly be more dangerous than a government that will tell me what I can and can't do? Or what I can and can't have? I don't think so. Not by several orders of magnitude.

[WildBill]

im just saying there are too many people who have a chl who dont deserve one ...

I'm guessing these people would disagree.

George Washington, George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, James McHenry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Blair, James Madison, Jr., William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson, John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris

Sorry folks, I came to this thread from a newr one and got called away,so I forgot which I was reading.
but it sounded good, soI think I'll leave it



Add my name to the list.

Everyone, including convicted felons(having served their sentence) has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This requires the right to defend said life. In turn, that requires the right to prepare an effective defense. Whether and how well one prepares is up to him, not me, or the state.

Might this present some danger from the inexperienced or ignorant? Yes. Could that possibly be more dangerous than a government that will tell me what I can and can't do? Or what I can and can't have? I don't think so. Not by several orders of magnitude.

For the record, I did not agree with the post of jtran987. My post was a [what the heck?] answer that didn't get any response until yours. I agree with your post that people "who have paid their debt to society" should have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.