Texas school district letting teachers carry guns

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
6
81
Originally p:thumbsup:eek:sted by: OFFascist
If they have a concealed handgun license they can already carry most everywhere else in the state except "bars, hospitals, courtrooms, and schools."

I dont really see what the big deal is, I can maybe see the arguments for bars and courtrooms, but I dont see why you should be prohibited from carrying a handgun in hospitals or schools if you are licensed. If the person had a bad intention the fact that carrying there is illegal wouldnt matter anyways. These laws only restrict the people who obey the law.

I'm licensed to carry, when I go into a bar, hospital, or school, I can either leave my handgun in my car where someone can potentially break in and steal it, or I could choose to break the law and say to myself "concealed is concealed," and not worry about the law and carry anyways.

 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,517
223
106
Originally posted by: grrl

Fuck you, I'm American, so I have say. If I wasn't, I would have said that up front (and wouldn't care).

I went by your profile.

Province/State: Other
Country: Korea, Republic of
E-mail Address: grrl@suncREMOVEhon.ac.kr

Now that you've straightened that out, feel free to address the rest of my post- with a little more eloquence, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I like how 3/4 of the people in this thread think this is a great idea and have pwnd the OP time after time, yet he's still trying.

Did you learn rejoinders like that in debate club? Add something useful or shut up. Like prove how I've been pawned. List 5 points that I'm irrefutably wrong on.

Add something useful, you say. And this is coming from a guy who, when replying to a 9 paragraph response, could only come up with a 'fuck you'? Dude...this is pathetic.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Have they had a problem with gun violence at that school?

Y'know, reading the article does wonders. :p

The small community of Harrold in north Texas is a 30-minute drive from the Wilbarger County Sheriff's Office, leaving students and teachers without protection, said David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District. The lone campus of the 110-student district sits near a heavily traveled highway, which could make it a target, he argued.

"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said in a story published Friday on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Web site.

They're actually taking the initiative to solve the problem before it happens. If more people would think like this, rather than waiting for someone to get killed before they do anything, this world would be a better place.

:roll: Y'know, that didn't answer my question at all.

If more people would be responsible with their firearms and with raising their children we wouldn't have these problems.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I like how 3/4 of the people in this thread think this is a great idea and have pwnd the OP time after time, yet he's still trying.

Did you learn rejoinders like that in debate club? Add something useful or shut up. Like prove how I've been pawned. List 5 points that I'm irrefutably wrong on.

I already have several pages back, on page 4 if you've got it set to 20/page, so there :p

1.
Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
All this school district has done has expanded the existing concealed carry law slightly.

True, but what if a majority of parents are opposed? Does this become another area of litigation, like the teaching of 'intelligent design' along side evolution?

So here you've realized that the other guy has a point and you've got nothing, so what do you do? Pull some stupid "what if" out of the air! We could what if all day long, it's completely useless.

2. & 3.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
If anyone tried to get the teacher in trouble for doing threatening them it would be a students word vs. a teachers.

Doesn't matter. An accusation of brandishing is sufficient to suspend a concealed carry permit until the investigation is completed and the person is cleared.

Also, remember that a person must pass a proficiency test as well as submit to fingerprinting, a criminal background check, and a mental health background check before being awarded a concealed carry permit. This strawman of every teacher being given a handgun is ridiculous.

ZV

This one counts for two, on the one hand it's been shown here that this won't allow teachers to become gun waving despots, and on the other hand he's pointed out your repeated attempts at setting up a strawman argument.

4.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: grrl
First, I know how to handle a firearm, although I don't own one. So I understand your analogy, but I still see a difference between knowing how to handle a weapon and knowing how to use it in a life/death situation, as opposed to hunting or on a firing range. Knowing how to use the weapon simplifies matters in a stressful situation, but you also need to know how to handle the situation, that's why I compared it to law enforcement. Soldiers are trained better than most civilian gun owners, yet it's not uncommon for them to freeze when it's truly time to kill someone. That's my point and at the root of my skepticism of those who think armed teachers is so obviously effective. I really don't think it's that incomprehensible an idea.

Statistically, police officers hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time. Persons with concealed carry permits hit innocent bystanders 2% of the time. You're more than 5 times safer when a civilian is firing than when a police officer is. (Source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws?. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)

Most police "handgun training" consists of a shot written test with range qualification of 1 hour every 6 months. Most civilian concealed carry permit holders practice at the range several hours per week. The simple fact is that civilian concealed carry permit holders are, in general, more proficient with their weapons than police.

ZV

ZV strikes again! Not only has he shown that CCW carriers are statistically better shots than police, he has a source to back it up.

5.
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: grrl

Fuck you, I'm American, so I have say. If I wasn't, I would have said that up front (and wouldn't care).

I went by your profile.

Province/State: Other
Country: Korea, Republic of
E-mail Address: grrl@suncREMOVEhon.ac.kr

Now that you've straightened that out, feel free to address the rest of my post- with a little more eloquence, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I like how 3/4 of the people in this thread think this is a great idea and have pwnd the OP time after time, yet he's still trying.

Did you learn rejoinders like that in debate club? Add something useful or shut up. Like prove how I've been pawned. List 5 points that I'm irrefutably wrong on.

Add something useful, you say. And this is coming from a guy who, when replying to a 9 paragraph response, could only come up with a 'fuck you'? Dude...this is pathetic.

Ok, not only has it been pointed out that you're BSing your profile for some unknown reason, JLee has shown that you aren't even living up to your own standards of "add something useful."

I just lifted these from the last thirty or so replies, and there's a lot more where that came from! Also I'd like to point out that there are few truly "irrefutable" things in life, there's always at least a hint of uncertainty in everything, and anyone that had paid any attention in a class on modern philosophy would know this. And, like I said a while ago, it sounds like you're just some juvenile that likes to run his mouth and throw in the occasional big word like "specious" just to sound smart, and I stand by that statement.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
grrl,

The point you are forgetting in all of this, do you think columbine would have happened if the attackers would have known 50% of the teachers were armed and ready to fire back? No, they brought in their guns, ammo vests, home made grenades, and laughed the entire time because they knew nobody was armed. They laughed and jokes the entire killing spreee because they knew everybody was helpless.

They wouldn't have even done the act if they knew the teachers were armed, in fact, they probably wouldn't have done a damn thing anywhere, because in other locations, people are armed. The fact that teachers CAN BE ARMED will deter many school shootings, even if the princicple tells the teachers to NOT CARRY. Just planting the seed in the head of studens that the teachers CAN BE ARMED will prevent them from attacking.

That is the 2nd amendment of the United States in action. Nobody is going to invade the United States, because every citizen could be armed and ready to fire back at any time, regardless if there is an army in the area or not. The citizens can band together and create their own army.

Its a Deterrent, and my guess, that is going to exactly happen. Plant the seed of doubt, but I can guarentee the adminstration is going to tell the teachers to not carry.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
This whole thread is pointless. This isn't arming teachers at all.

If a teacher was going to bring a gun to school to murder all of their students, then the old law not allowing them to bring a gun to school would have made no difference.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,517
223
106
Originally posted by: grrl
Yes, assume you know my mindset and place blame on me, because we all KNOW that had Librescu been armed he would have downed Choi, one shot dead center to the forehead. Considering how random the VTech shooting was, for your theory to work in practice many, many people would have to be armed, many more than currently are. However, arguing the pros and cons of carrying guns is always circular. It's not as simple as 'when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns' or unproven claims that criminals will think twice if they believe their victim is armed. If that was true, the death penalty would be a deterent, which it is not.

He would have had a better chance, and you would be a fool to deny that. I'll take a better chance over almost no chance- but apparently we think quite differently.

The bad guys already don't care about laws- which makes them bad guys. If the good guys are abiding by the laws and not carrying in schools, then obviously there's nothing to stop bad guys from doing whatever they please...as evidenced by past school shootings. Ever wonder why you don't see mass shootings in gun stores, shooting ranges or police stations?

Originally posted by: grrl
That argument could go either way, if so many officers are being killed, how are half-trained civilians better equipped?
My point is that it doesn't require extensive training to effectively use a firearm, as evidenced by many line-of-duty deaths- and also evidenced by thousands of successful defensive uses of firearms by legally armed citizens. Read.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: grrl

Fuck you, I'm American, so I have say. If I wasn't, I would have said that up front (and wouldn't care).

I went by your profile.

Province/State: Other
Country: Korea, Republic of
E-mail Address: grrl@suncREMOVEhon.ac.kr

Now that you've straightened that out, feel free to address the rest of my post- with a little more eloquence, if you don't mind.

Welcome to the global economy. You failed to remember this is an open, international forum, and as I said, I would have noted up front if I wasn't American.



Originally posted by: JLee

Add something useful, you say. And this is coming from a guy who, when replying to a 9 paragraph response, could only come up with a 'fuck you'? Dude...this is pathetic.

My mistake. Check the original response above. Most of my reply ended up inside the quoted box, after the relevant parts.



Originally posted by: JLee

My point is that it doesn't require extensive training to effectively use a firearm, as evidenced by many line-of-duty deaths- and also evidenced by thousands of successful defensive uses of firearms by legally armed citizens. Read.

I looked at that link briefly last night, but will go back when I have more time.

 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I like how 3/4 of the people in this thread think this is a great idea and have pwnd the OP time after time, yet he's still trying.

Did you learn rejoinders like that in debate club? Add something useful or shut up. Like prove how I've been pawned. List 5 points that I'm irrefutably wrong on.

I already have several pages back, on page 4 if you've got it set to 20/page, so there :p

1.
Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
All this school district has done has expanded the existing concealed carry law slightly.

True, but what if a majority of parents are opposed? Does this become another area of litigation, like the teaching of 'intelligent design' along side evolution?

So here you've realized that the other guy has a point and you've got nothing, so what do you do? Pull some stupid "what if" out of the air! We could what if all day long, it's completely useless.

I must have the page set up incorrectly, because I never saw those.

I was slow to appreciate the significance of that fact, and was simply acknowledging his point. However, my question was really a musing about rights, what if a majority of parents disapprove? Maybe I should have written, I supposed this becomes another area....


Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
2. & 3.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
If anyone tried to get the teacher in trouble for doing threatening them it would be a students word vs. a teachers.

Doesn't matter. An accusation of brandishing is sufficient to suspend a concealed carry permit until the investigation is completed and the person is cleared.

Also, remember that a person must pass a proficiency test as well as submit to fingerprinting, a criminal background check, and a mental health background check before being awarded a concealed carry permit. This strawman of every teacher being given a handgun is ridiculous.

ZV

This one counts for two, on the one hand it's been shown here that this won't allow teachers to become gun waving despots, and on the other hand he's pointed out your repeated attempts at setting up a strawman argument.

I never made that argument, that's CrazyLazy's.



Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
4.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Statistically, police officers hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time. Persons with concealed carry permits hit innocent bystanders 2% of the time. You're more than 5 times safer when a civilian is firing than when a police officer is. (Source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws?. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)

Most police "handgun training" consists of a shot written test with range qualification of 1 hour every 6 months. Most civilian concealed carry permit holders practice at the range several hours per week. The simple fact is that civilian concealed carry permit holders are, in general, more proficient with their weapons than police.

ZV

ZV strikes again! Not only has he shown that CCW carriers are statistically better shots than police, he has a source to back it up.

That post came later, a while after I had already requested some links supporting CCW. Plus, I replied that I found it interesting. In fact, I find it pretty amazing.


Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
5.
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: grrl

Fuck you, I'm American, so I have say. If I wasn't, I would have said that up front (and wouldn't care).

I went by your profile.

Province/State: Other
Country: Korea, Republic of
E-mail Address: grrl@suncREMOVEhon.ac.kr

Now that you've straightened that out, feel free to address the rest of my post- with a little more eloquence, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I like how 3/4 of the people in this thread think this is a great idea and have pwnd the OP time after time, yet he's still trying.

Did you learn rejoinders like that in debate club? Add something useful or shut up. Like prove how I've been pawned. List 5 points that I'm irrefutably wrong on.

Add something useful, you say. And this is coming from a guy who, when replying to a 9 paragraph response, could only come up with a 'fuck you'? Dude...this is pathetic.

Ok, not only has it been pointed out that you're BSing your profile for some unknown reason, JLee has shown that you aren't even living up to your own standards of "add something useful."

Replied to in an earlier post and only you have suggested I'm BSing my profile, which I'm not, I live in South Korea.


Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
I just lifted these from the last thirty or so replies, and there's a lot more where that came from! Also I'd like to point out that there are few truly "irrefutable" things in life, there's always at least a hint of uncertainty in everything, and anyone that had paid any attention in a class on modern philosophy would know this. And, like I said a while ago, it sounds like you're just some juvenile that likes to run his mouth and throw in the occasional big word like "specious" just to sound smart, and I stand by that statement.

Well, I can only concede points 1 and 4 and I didn't need to study philosophy to learn about uncertainty. I said irrefutable because that would support my supposed 'pawning'. I posted the story because I wanted some others' opinions, although I should have clearly stated my position in the original post.

I still find the story a bit messed up, which is as much commentary on the whole violence problem as anything else. I'm not for arguing for gun control, just wondering if this is really the only and/or best option. As brandonb noted, the school's decision may be as much about bluff as anything else.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
This is one area where you and I differ - this will not solve the problem. Will it make it better - who knows? If someone wants to shoot up the school - armed teachers aren't going to stop them - they probably aren't going to even deter them. If anything, the shooters are going to prepare themselves better.

Most of the school shootings are for personal reasons - the shooters feel some emotional attachment to that particular school.

Oh really?

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: grrl
This is seriously messed up.

It's seriously messed up that Teachers haven't been armed all along.

So many deaths would've been prevented over the last decade or so from Columbine to Virginia Tech and everything in between.

It only takes one bullet to take out a shooter but if no one is armed against that shooter he or she can take out as many as they have bullets.

Amazing that so many don't get that until they are staring down the end of a gun barrel and then wished they had a gun.

You're just assuming that arming a teacher is going to give them the ability, nerve and stones to actually do something with the gun. This is just a bad assumption. Shooting is an acquired skill like anything else. You don't practice - you're more likely to be spraying your bullets pseudo-randonly anyways. Could it have prevented the death we've seen at these school shootings - yes. Would it have - who knows?

Besides, putting a handgun (since they won't be able to conceal much more) up against an automatic or semi-automatic machine gun is a losing battle the vast majority of the time.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

Regardless, why do you have the impression that the school is going to be "arming teachers"..? They're allowing those WHO HAVE CARRY PERMITS to carry- with additional training, even. It's not like 'welcome to school, here's your gun' as you seem to be implying.

One example does not prove anything.

How long does it take to get concealed permit in Texas - 3 weeks?

Sharp shooters train their whole lives to be able to shoot properly. 3 weeks isn't going to cut it especially not for a hand gun.

PS - No need to insult me nor take my statements out of context. I said automatic or semi-automatic machine guns. I didn't say semi-automatic machine guns.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: Excelsior
GIVE me one good reason why a person with a CCL and carrying wouldn't improve the situations discussed in this thread.

Without the proper training, calm and skill to discharge the weapon in a crowded place, the teacher is more like to hit other people than he/she is to hit the shooter.

A handgun against more powerful, faster discharging, larger capacity weapons is almost always a losing battle.

There's two.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
Sounds like the qualifications/requirements for carrying on school grounds are pretty stringent yet fair. Would probably be good for the community as a whole since the sheriff is 30 minutes away.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
One example does not prove anything.

How long does it take to get concealed permit in Texas - 3 weeks?

Sharp shooters train their whole lives to be able to shoot properly. 3 weeks isn't going to cut it especially not for a hand gun.

PS - No need to insult me nor take my statements out of context. I said automatic or semi-automatic machine guns. I didn't say semi-automatic machine guns.

Wait what?

Semi-automatic = not a machine gun. You need a federal firearms license to get a machine gun, and they've been outlawed for decades. Nearly no crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons. Also, nearly no crimes are committed with semi-automatic "assault" rifles (which are NOT machine guns).

Your idea that it only takes 3 weeks to get a CCW permit in Texas only applies to people who are brand new to shooting. Most have been doing it for years.

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Excelsior
GIVE me one good reason why a person with a CCL and carrying wouldn't improve the situations discussed in this thread.

Without the proper training, calm and skill to discharge the weapon in a crowded place, the teacher is more like to hit other people than he/she is to hit the shooter.

A handgun against more powerful, faster discharging, larger capacity weapons is almost always a losing battle.

There's two.

Like I said, almost no crimes are committed using semi-automatic or automatic weapons. Even before the 1994 assault weapons ban, they were only used in 1.4% of gun crimes, and they were responsible for less than 1% of homicides.

The vast majority of guns used to commit crimes are stolen handguns. They're the easiest to conceal (allowing the shooter to prevent attracting attention before he reaches his target), the most plentiful, have the cheapest and most plentiful ammunition, and are pretty easily available from street dealers who sell stolen guns.

Criminals know that nearly all schools don't allow guns, yet few schools have metal detectors. They're excellent targets because they know everyone is unarmed. I doubt any potential shooter is going to target this school district now that they know the teachers might be armed. The only possible disadvantage is that the teachers may become targets, but a potential shooter would rather simply attack people he knows aren't armed rather than attack a school where someone might shoot back.

And before you even talk about accuracy, police are far, far more likely to kill an innocent person than a civilian is. 11% of police shootings kill innocent people, but only 2% of civilian shootings do so.

All figures obtained from gunfacts.info (there is a PDF document with gun myths and sourced statistics debunking them).
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Excelsior
GIVE me one good reason why a person with a CCL and carrying wouldn't improve the situations discussed in this thread.

Without the proper training, calm and skill to discharge the weapon in a crowded place, the teacher is more like to hit other people than he/she is to hit the shooter.

A handgun against more powerful, faster discharging, larger capacity weapons is almost always a losing battle.

There's two.

So you're advocating that teachers carry automatic weapons? Good idea!
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Excelsior
GIVE me one good reason why a person with a CCL and carrying wouldn't improve the situations discussed in this thread.

Without the proper training, calm and skill to discharge the weapon in a crowded place, the teacher is more like to hit other people than he/she is to hit the shooter.

A handgun against more powerful, faster discharging, larger capacity weapons is almost always a losing battle.

There's two.

Since you obviously missed it, I'll quote it again:

Statistically, police officers hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time. Persons with concealed carry permits hit innocent bystanders 2% of the time. You're more than 5 times safer when a civilian is firing than when a police officer is. (Source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws?. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)

Most police "handgun training" consists of a short written test with range qualification of 1 hour every 6 months. Most civilian concealed carry permit holders practice at the range several hours per week. The simple fact is that civilian concealed carry permit holders are, in general, more proficient with their weapons than police.

So your first part is false. In fact, the teacher is less likely to miss the shooter than the actual police are.

As for the second part, are you honestly saying that you'd prefer people to have no chance at all as opposed to having some chance, however small?

ZV
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
Originally posted by: grrl
Originally posted by: CPA
Good! So OP, I'm wondering what your brilliant plan would be for the school to protect itself.

I realize wishing the problem didn't exist means nothing, but I don't see arming teachers as the solution. If weapons are a problem I'd suggest security guards and metal detectors as a start. The whole situation is just quite fucked up IMO.

Weapons are NEVER the problem, which is what "you people" will never ever ever get. Uhhhggg...
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
The fact is, the only way to significantly reduce gun violence is to do one of two things:

1. Ban guns completely, or
2. Allow citizens to arm themselves

We can't do #1 because of the second amendment, and half-assed gun control laws are simply annoying roadblocks to legitimate gun ownership that do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Look at it this way - part of the reason we have a lot of gun-related crime in the U.S. is because there are simply lots of guns here. They get stolen, sold on the street, and then people commit crimes with them. The only way to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals is to outlaw them completely and kill the supply of guns entirely. Requiring a background check is one law I can agree with, and I'd also support legislation to prevent the mentally ill from being able to get them (records could remain confidential with a simple red flag attached to people who should not be allowed to buy guns).

So naturally we must do option #2. Allowing people to arm themselves will make criminals think twice before attacking someone. It's interesting to note that the states with the most lenient gun laws also have the lowest crime rates. Whether one is a direct result of another isn't certain, but I believe there's at least some correlation.
 

bobcpg

Senior member
Nov 14, 2001
951
0
0
Originally posted by: Bateluer
Sounds like a good idea to me. All previous school shootings could have been stopped a single teacher with a 9mm.

Tell me how those other school shooting were stopped? Betcha it involved a gun.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Yeah, the previous ones all ended when the shooter decided he had killed enough people and shot himself.

The police are worthless in these scenarios. Even when they do get to the scene before the shooting is over, they never go in and risk themselves to stop the guy. They just sort of twiddle their thumbs and hope the shooter runs out of ammo.
 

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,423
0
0
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Everything is bigger in Texas (except brains and dicks).

Sounds like you have checked both thoroughly, eh? You a fan of the peener?



Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I think it's amazing how many idiots seem to forget that you have to go through a yearly training course and get a special permit to be able to carry a concealed weapon in the first place. All this school district has done has expanded the existing concealed carry law slightly.

Look, if I'm going to commit a murder, why would I bother going through all this crap legally? Why would I spend money on proper training and buy a gun legally when I could just find some dude on the street, buy a gun that way (much cheaper), skip the whole "tell the government I own a gun" part, and then go on a shooting spree? The people who tend to commit these crimes aren't going to spend that much time plotting them out.


Depends on the state, mine (Texas) is once every 5 years, however I can attest to the fact that the class is very informative and the test is solid. Not hard to pass if you have been shooting a few times but good enough to weed out anyone who isn't familiar with a handgun.


Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: grrl
First, I know how to handle a firearm, although I don't own one. So I understand your analogy, but I still see a difference between knowing how to handle a weapon and knowing how to use it in a life/death situation, as opposed to hunting or on a firing range. Knowing how to use the weapon simplifies matters in a stressful situation, but you also need to know how to handle the situation, that's why I compared it to law enforcement. Soldiers are trained better than most civilian gun owners, yet it's not uncommon for them to freeze when it's truly time to kill someone. That's my point and at the root of my skepticism of those who think armed teachers is so obviously effective. I really don't think it's that incomprehensible an idea.

Statistically, police officers hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time. Persons with concealed carry permits hit innocent bystanders 2% of the time. You're more than 5 times safer when a civilian is firing than when a police officer is. (Source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws?. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)

Most police "handgun training" consists of a shot written test with range qualification of 1 hour every 6 months. Most civilian concealed carry permit holders practice at the range several hours per week. The simple fact is that civilian concealed carry permit holders are, in general, more proficient with their weapons than police.

ZV

As a gun-owner, I would disagree that most CHL holders (I just applied for mine) practice several hours per week. I would say several hours per month is most, but not per week.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: thepd7
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: grrl
First, I know how to handle a firearm, although I don't own one. So I understand your analogy, but I still see a difference between knowing how to handle a weapon and knowing how to use it in a life/death situation, as opposed to hunting or on a firing range. Knowing how to use the weapon simplifies matters in a stressful situation, but you also need to know how to handle the situation, that's why I compared it to law enforcement. Soldiers are trained better than most civilian gun owners, yet it's not uncommon for them to freeze when it's truly time to kill someone. That's my point and at the root of my skepticism of those who think armed teachers is so obviously effective. I really don't think it's that incomprehensible an idea.

Statistically, police officers hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time. Persons with concealed carry permits hit innocent bystanders 2% of the time. You're more than 5 times safer when a civilian is firing than when a police officer is. (Source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws?. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)

Most police "handgun training" consists of a shot written test with range qualification of 1 hour every 6 months. Most civilian concealed carry permit holders practice at the range several hours per week. The simple fact is that civilian concealed carry permit holders are, in general, more proficient with their weapons than police.

ZV

As a gun-owner, I would disagree that most CHL holders (I just applied for mine) practice several hours per week. I would say several hours per month is most, but not per week.

Most of the people I know who carry regularly go to the range once a week and spend 2-3 hours there. I probably should have been more conservative and said several hours per month, but the overall point still stands. :)

ZV
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
who needs detentions

i got my glock to your dome and now you're goin home...

...to get your Mom's signature on that permission slip.