What say you?
- Thread starter MPA1988
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I haven't heard about this. When is it coming? I am basically against anything that interferes with our right to keep and bear arms, and/or our right to self defense. However, in the CHL class I took year before last there was a middle aged married couple with brand new handguns they had never shot nor had either ever fired a handgun. There was a young lady who had fired her handgun once, and had no self confidence in her ability to handle or operate it. There was somewhat beyond middle aged man who brought a cheap Luger clone that after the instructor had worked with a few minutes, caused said instructor to declare, "This weapon is going to get you killed!" I'm sure these are not isolated cases and I feel for instructors who have to deal with such nonsense. Completion of a basic training class would go far in preventing such occurrences.
I don't think that's a bad idea. To me, the more, and better the training you have with your gun, the better. I started with never shooting a handgun, dug into online training videos etc. I knew not to muzzle flash people etc., but the more time you spend with them, if you're not a full on mentally handicapped person, the better you become. I don't see why some specified training could hurt - unless people treat it like a poll tax.
+1 on this. My gun safety training started in the Boy Scouts in ~1972. i distinctly remember my dad reaming my ass out when we were on my Uncles farm and I stupidly pointed the .22 we were shooting at him.
It will do nothing but add to the cost of getting a license, both in the cost of the course and scheduling time to take it. Not to mention those who may have to travel a good bit just to find an NRA instructor.
BIGPAPIGREG
TGT Addict
might be the only way folks get some kind of formal training, other than just qualifying for a CHL. Just because it is required, if not they might not ever pursue or at least look into more training. It may open some eyes as to what is actually out there as far as training goes, also to get past the fear of not knowing what is involved in training classes as well as what can be gained by continued training...either way it goes, as of now, I don't see it as a bad thing...time will tell
I'm not an instructor, but it's painfully obvious you are full of it.
Courses are getting shorter, renewals are online, an there is no pending legislation for any changes to the CHL requirements, nor could there be until the next legislative session.
You've given NO evidence to support this claim, overwhelming odds are that we will not be any worse off after the next election than we are currently (yes, there is a chance. Not saying it's in the bag), and we gained ground in the last session and are positioned to gain more in the next.
You are doing nothing more than spouting crap in an effort to get people worked up for an unknown reason.
My guess is you are an NRA instructor yourself and see this as another way to make a little money, similar to FFLs who supported UBCs because they saw money in private sales.
I totally agree with you, however, I still don't think its a bad idea. People showing up at a CHL class that have put 10 rounds down the tube are scary to me. That's why I said it's like a poll tax.
And after checking your profile I see that I nailed it on the NRA instructor. Also notice you went to USC and worked for California Highway patrol. Maybe some of that California liberalism creeped in to your blood while you were there.
People showing up at the voting booth with no idea who or what they're voting on are just as dangerous.
Just not as immediately.
+1 I think my timing on this thread is off. Couldn't agree more.
As the course is now, someone who can't operate their firearm safely should fail the course for that reason. Part of being able to qualify.
It's up to the instructor to judge that.
You calling troll?
BIGPAPIGREG
TGT Addict
that was always my question. Operating the firearm in a comprehensive manor (WHEEW..big word) as well as being able to put rounds on target......to me, they go hand in hand
It's the only course required to apply for a Connecticut Pistol Permit. It doesn't really teach the firearm laws of Connecticut nor is it required to. It is a course that teaches basic knowledge of semi-autos and revolvers with a practical shoot of both types at the end of the course.
