You're Not Rambo - CCL holders piss their pants

And you know this how?

The only thing they are really trying to change is a caliber reduction.

And BTW .... nothing has changed yet. I checked yesterday and the bill hasn't been passed ... so ..... nothing has changed YET!

And you call me a "dumbass" ... And you are leading BigTits around by the nose. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Jesus Christ on a goddamn cross. See if you can follow this simple, logical train of thought. They have a manual currently, let's say they have 10 hours of class time to go through it. Now, this is where it get's tricky, so try and keep up. If they reduce the amount of class time hours, and still use the current manual, they will be cramming the same amount of info into LESS time. Do you see the problem with that?

Jesus Christ on a goddamn cross. See if you can follow this simple, logical train of thought. They have a manual currently, let's say they have 10 hours of class time to go through it. Now, this is where it get's tricky, so try and keep up. If they reduce the amount of class time hours, and still use the current manual, they will be cramming the same amount of info into LESS time. Do you see the problem with that? Originally Posted by WombRaider

And you have seen the "instructor's manual"?

You really need to get a grip.

You are losing the discussion. Speedy knows he has.

And you have seen the "instructor's manual"?

You really need to get a grip.

You are losing the discussion. Speedy knows he has. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, .... can't find one, can you?

You are a loser of the first order of magnitude. Loser #1 on the charts.

NO legislation was "approved" by the Texas Legislature last year!!!!!!

You can "check your spelling and syntax," but not the FACTS!

Someone who is willfully ignorant DESERVES to be ridiculed. He's not clearly anything, except a goddamn fool. He lacks advanced critical thinking skills or even the ability to master syntax and spelling. If you think he's intelligent, you're dumber than he is.

PS - how's that for denigrating? Didn't even have to use any juvenile insults. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The sentence construction and lack of juvenile insults were pretty good. The problem is you failed to disprove the original hypothesis: LL is clearly smarter than you and BigTex. Since some of the other sub geniuses chimed in, let's include them among those less intellectually gifted than LL.
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with him. Your quote, "he lacks advanced critical thinking skills or the ability to master syntax and spelling," just shows desperation from the ringleader of a losing cause. If you attack his arguments, you might score a point from time to time. If you attack his intelligence, you are merely showcasing your own emotional immaturity.

If they reduce the amount of class time hours, and still use the current manual, they will be cramming the same amount of info into LESS time. Do you see the problem with that? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You make a good point except it doesn't take 10 hours to go through the current material. Plus, not too many certificate holders have gotten into trouble. The current course is adequate for responsible and intelligent people who are psychologically well adjusted.

I was done in two hours but the instructor wanted to keep going to follow the statutory rules. I bet him I could ace the test - so he gave it to me. 80 or 100 questions later, I might have missed one of them. So, we filled the remainder of the time discussing scenarios after the range qualification.

Hey Speedo .....

.. is the Texas Legislature in session during even numbered years?

"The Texas Legislature meets in regular session on the second Tuesday in January of each odd-numbered year. The Texas Constitution limits the regular session to 140 calendar days."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature

I referenced a source you might accept as "authority"!

So, again, I ask .... who is the "they" in ... "they approved legislation"!

You all keep it up!

I'm going to nickname your tribe the .....

The Pink Parroting Pansies

You even "sucked" in BigTits ..... the chorus of the Pink Parroting Pansies. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I now have to believe Bigtex is correct. You are really fucking stupid.
The cited article appeared in the paper on November 12, 2014. "Last year" refers to 2013.

Here is my statement made earlier in the thread: "Texas lowered its requirements for a CCL a year or two ago." 100% correct -- the required number of hours for classroom hours was reduced from 10 to 4-6.

From http://ivn.us/2013/04/08/texas-bill-...dgun-licenses/ on April 8, 2013:

"On April 4, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee passed SB 864, which would reduce the required classroom time to obtain a concealed handgun license from 10-15 hours, to 4-6 hours. It would also give citizens who have already obtained their license the chance to renew it online. The bill was authored by Republican State Senator Donna Campbell."

Your statements made earlier in this thread. Text highlighting was done by you:

"An original (first-time) CHL applicant must complete four to six hours of classroom training, pass a written examination and pass a proficiency demonstration (shooting)."

Then you later state "That's what I recall 15-20 years ago." 100% wrong.

Maybe you should stick to arguing that Nau's is not in the Clarksville section of Austin.

You make a good point except it doesn't take 10 hours to go through the current material. Plus, not too many certificate holders have gotten into trouble. The current course is adequate for responsible and intelligent people who are psychologically well adjusted.

I was done in two hours but the instructor wanted to keep going to follow the statutory rules. I bet him I could ace the test - so he gave it to me. 80 or 100 questions later, I might have missed one of them. So, we filled the remainder of the time discussing scenarios after the range qualification. Originally Posted by DSK

Actually, the "adjustment" was made in 2013, but the "adjustment" had nothing to do with decreasing the classroom "academic" hours, but merely separated them from the "practicals," which could vary from CHL instructor to CHL instructor....The carving out of the academic portion to assure adequate time to educate on the principles involved, was "reassuring" to the opponents, while allowing for more flexibility on the "proficiency" (practical) block of "training."

Blocks of instruction in adult education must adjust to the slow learners in the group, rather than the faster learners, as you. Notice I didn't say "slowest learner" in the group. They will be culled through the academic testing. The "proficiency" block of instruction must be tailored to recognize there will be nonshooters in the class and/or older shooters who have not fired a handgun for most of their lives. Qualified firearm instructors know the techniques to train a nonshooter to qualify when the shooter has never fired a weapon of the type to be used to qualify, and in some instances have never fired any kind of firearm.

I think some of the concerns with the 2013 adjustment had to do with instructors cutting corners for marketing reasons, so they could advertise shorter courses ... to capitalize on the "fast food" mentality prevalent in our society....not to mention the "know-it-alls" who think they don't need the training to carry a weapon into a street fight.

It didn't change the curriculum, as I stated, it merely assured that x number of hours would be devoted to the important academic portions of the course guidelines ... and as most anyone can tell ... even those who profess to have qualified for a CHL have difficulty with basic and fundamental principles of self-defense and use of force standards.

Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, .... can't find one, can you?

You are a loser of the first order of magnitude. Loser #1 on the charts.

NO legislation was "approved" by the Texas Legislature last year!!!!!!

You can "check your spelling and syntax," but not the FACTS! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I guess that facts don't matter when you can't read, as you obviously cannot. Or maybe it's your math skills.

2014 - 1 =2013.

Source: http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/...s#.VUFa2ZNKVwU

Dated November 12, 2014

Last year they approved legislation that reduced the number of classroom hours, from 10 to four-six, for people applying for concealed handgun license renewal, and to allow taking the written exam online.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess that facts don't matter when you can't read, as you obviously cannot. Or maybe it's your math skills.

2014 - 1 =2013. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No the facts do matter. The "adjustment" in 2013 was not a "reduction" in course hours ... it amounted to a segregation of the classroom hours from the practical/proficiency training to assure basic classroom hours ... One only has to look at the recent advertisement of courses offered to see the fragmentation and one can read the course descriptions to determine what has happened.

Your "pitch" was a shortening of training, but it was defining minimums. The bill mentioned in the article .. by Senator Perry has not passed and does not change those minimums, even if it passes.

If you look how the "curriculum" has been segmented ... novices are encouraged to take a "beginner's course" BEFORE the CHL, which can be an hour or two, the CHL class room can be from 4-6 hours, and the proficiency is tacked on at 2 hours ...... you want to do some math? 2+6+2=10.

It's about "marketing" ... like buying a set of tires. Who pays the advertised price?

You will see some training providers advertising "intermediate and advanced" CHL classes of 4+2, which is reflective of the exactly what I was stating. That's about what was being taught before, but the classes offered were for all prospective licensees lumped together ... You'll see some advertising 50 rounds for a 25 round course, and others advertising 100 rounds for a 25 round course. What's the difference ....? The intermediate and advanced may well qualify with 25 rounds and be done ... while others may need the additional rounds to qualify. Depending upon the number of "lanes" on the range and the number of students in the classes, it can take more than 2 hours of shooting to get everyone qualified.

Actually I read pretty well, smart ass. I also tend to look at the legislative history with the backdrop of the training conducted by DPS and other LE agencies over the years to get a better understanding of the challenges involved in the training, rather than some newspaper clipping with an agenda. To that point over the years I have repeatedly stated IMO that CHL training is inadequate, and I have compared it to basic peace officer training regarding the same topics ... basic peace officer training (in Texas) for those topics runs around 120 hours, and the DPS two to three times that much.

And folks on here still whine about inadequate LE training, but say little, if anything, about CHL training inadequacies .. while they "strut" their expertise, because they have a CHL.

[/B]Then you later state "[/SIZE]That's what I recall 15-20 years ago." 100% wrong. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No that is not wrong. I just showed you the math. Breaking it up and establishing minimums to the segments is not "shortening" .. it is "defining."

Go look at the friggin' ads .... see what happened after 2013.

Not much ... just a segmented pricing change ... to get one's original license.

15+ years ago there were classes beginning at 8 a.m. and ending at 5:00 p.m. One-size fits all classes. To compete some providers were short on the academics and long on the practicals .... (after all cowboys want to shoot!!!!!)

Read the regs ... then read the article you posted.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/interne...rms/chl-16.pdf

Then read the Pre-2013 Regs on training ... the Pre-2013 Regs contained "proficiency" in the mandatory course of 10 hours, which was removed from the Post-2013 Regs when the adjustment was made to the "classroom" hours .... That's because the handgun "proficiency" block of instruction was segregated from the "academic" portion of the instruction. As I said ... that's not a "shortening' that is a segmentation.

In the early 90's the Texas legislation "eliminated" the provision in the Texas Penal Code defining the crime and punishment for killing a cop. There were DA's (and I mean the elected official not the employees) sending out letters to the agencies in "their jurisdiction" warning officers that the Legislation had just "opened season" on cops by eliminating the crime of killing a cop! All the Legislature did was define a new offense of Killing a "public servant" and included cops in the definition of "public servant." The ignorance created hysteria. This is just the reverse of that.

The oversight agency for LE training in Texas defines in the same manner the blocks of instruction, which the DPS follows, and which all training facilities are to follow ... those are minimum standards. Same shit. Roughly 250-300 hours minimum, but the DPS academy is about 1500 hours....expanded training. Each block of instruction is defined.

No the facts do matter. The "adjustment" in 2013 was not a "reduction" in course hours ... it amounted to a segregation of the classroom hours from the practical/proficiency training to assure basic classroom hours ... One only has to look at the recent advertisement of courses offered to see the fragmentation and one can read the course descriptions to determine what has happened.

Your "pitch" was a shortening of training, but it was defining minimums. The bill mentioned in the article .. by Senator Perry has not passed and does not change those minimums, even if it passes.

If you look how the "curriculum" has been segmented ... novices are encouraged to take a "beginner's course" BEFORE the CHL, which can be an hour or two, the CHL class room can be from 4-6 hours, and the proficiency is tacked on at 2 hours ...... you want to do some math? 2+6+2=10.

It's about "marketing" ... like buying a set of tires. Who pays the advertised price?

You will see some training providers advertising "intermediate and advanced" CHL classes of 4+2, which is reflective of the exactly what I was stating. That's about what was being taught before, but the classes offered were for all prospective licensees lumped together ... You'll see some advertising 50 rounds for a 25 round course, and others advertising 100 rounds for a 25 round course. What's the difference ....? The intermediate and advanced may well qualify with 25 rounds and be done ... while others may need the additional rounds to qualify. Depending upon the number of "lanes" on the range and the number of students in the classes, it can take more than 2 hours of shooting to get everyone qualified.

Actually I read pretty well, smart ass. I also tend to look at the legislative history with the backdrop of the training conducted by DPS and other LE agencies over the years to get a better understanding of the challenges involved in the training, rather than some newspaper clipping with an agenda. To that point over the years I have repeatedly stated IMO that CHL training is inadequate, and I have compared it to basic peace officer training regarding the same topics ... basic peace officer training (in Texas) for those topics runs around 120 hours, and the DPS two to three times that much.

And folks on here still whine about inadequate LE training, but say little, if anything, about CHL training inadequacies .. while they "strut" their expertise, because they have a CHL. Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Encouraged" is not a requirement. So take 2 hours off of the requirements for a CHL. 8 is less than the previously required 10. You can argue without backup facts all you
want. Read and try to comprehend the 2 articles I cited. Both state that required hours to obtain a CHL went for 10 to 4-6.

If you read so well you would have easily understood that an article written in 2014 talking about a law passed a year earlier, SB 864, referred to the year 2013. As usual, you simply will never admit when you make a mistake.

And the Perry bill to which you referred is SB 179 which as you stated does not talk about CHL requirements. I never said it did. The article cited talked about it but is irrelevant to the point I was making about reduced CHL requirements, which was mentioned at the end of the article. Reading skills again.

If you read so well .... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are basing your "assessment" and "opinion" on articles in the news media. I am basing mine on the legislative intent as stated in the statute passed and the one up for passage this year, and the modification of the regulations promulgated by the Texas Department of Public Safety regarding the REQUIREMENTS for initial licensing and the structure of the qualifying course.

Just like your buddy, YouRong, who depends on ads and publicity articles to determine the LEGAL location of facilities ... as opposed to the Official City of Austin Maps. I'll take the statutes and regulations over news media articles.

Perhaps they are easier for you to read and comprehend, which is why you prefer them. Historically, they are written on an 11th grade level for general "consumption." Personally, I prefer the law as written .. after it is passed and in place with the Governor's signature, or in this case the Director's blessings.

As for you ridiculing the word I used .... "encouraged" .... Here's the "encouraging" pitch to the nonshooter appearing for the CHL class.

"We have a beginner's class to review gun handling, gun cleaning, and gun safety with some acquaintance with some shooting on the range, because the actual CHL class is going to move rather quickly and the people in there already have experience in those areas and we don't have a lot of time to teach you. It's only $50 if you take the CHL with it, and well worth it. We have one right before the CHL class begins. How about it?" Not an exact quote, but pretty damn close.

That's why I compared it to buying a set of tires: After the stems, air, disposal fee, balancing, and road hazard coverage, it's more than the ad in the paper stated for the set of four. That's called "marketing" .. on this board it's called "upsell" .... !!!!!

You ever heard of slicing bologna ... that's what you're doing.

And very thin, too!

The question is: When you take out a block or two of instruction and assign it to a follow up block of instruction, is that a "reduction" in training or not?

The sentence construction and lack of juvenile insults were pretty good. The problem is you failed to disprove the original hypothesis: LL is clearly smarter than you and BigTex. Since some of the other sub geniuses chimed in, let's include them among those less intellectually gifted than LL.
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with him. Your quote, "he lacks advanced critical thinking skills or the ability to master syntax and spelling," just shows desperation from the ringleader of a losing cause. If you attack his arguments, you might score a point from time to time. If you attack his intelligence, you are merely showcasing your own emotional immaturity. Originally Posted by DSK

And you think anyone gives a fuck about your opinion? Lets face it, If this was the very first time you were kissing someones ass maybe.....MAYBE....we would take you seriously. You're responsible for your own demise JL errr DSK.

The fact that you call LL "smart" while it is akin to fact that he is "fucking stupid" is pretty much enough to know that you are just an ass kisser. You chime in with this subjective ass-kissing every.single.time someone on your side is getting his ass handed to him. Do you really think it helps your case?

You are basing your "assessment" and "opinion" on articles in the news media. I am basing mine on the legislative intent as stated in the statute passed and the one up for passage this year, and the modification of the regulations promulgated by the Texas Department of Public Safety regarding the REQUIREMENTS for initial licensing and the structure of the qualifying course.

Just like your buddy, YouRong, who depends on ads and publicity articles to determine the LEGAL location of facilities ... as opposed to the Official City of Austin Maps. I'll take the statutes and regulations over news media articles.

Perhaps they are easier for you to read and comprehend, which is why you prefer them. Historically, they are written on an 11th grade level for general "consumption." Personally, I prefer the law as written .. after it is passed and in place with the Governor's signature, or in this case the Director's blessings.

As for you ridiculing the word I used .... "encouraged" .... Here's the "encouraging" pitch to the nonshooter appearing for the CHL class.

"We have a beginner's class to review gun handling, gun cleaning, and gun safety with some acquaintance with some shooting on the range, because the actual CHL class is going to move rather quickly and the people in there already have experience in those areas and we don't have a lot of time to teach you. It's only $50 if you take the CHL with it, and well worth it. We have one right before the CHL class begins. How about it?" Not an exact quote, but pretty damn close.

That's why I compared it to buying a set of tires: After the stems, air, disposal fee, balancing, and road hazard coverage, it's more than the ad in the paper stated for the set of four. That's called "marketing" .. on this board it's called "upsell" .... !!!!!

You ever heard of slicing bologna ... that's what you're doing.

And very thin, too!

The question is: When you take out a block or two of instruction and assign it to a follow up block of instruction, is that a "reduction" in training or not? Originally Posted by LexusLover

SB 864:

Currently, CHL classes must be 10-15 hours, including classroom instruction and range time. SB 864 separates the two elements; it requires the classroom instruction to be 4-6 hours and does not give a time constraint on the proficiency exam (shooting test at the range).


Absolutely nothing different in the official SB from that in either of my posts in which I
cited articles. Both articles simply stated that the requirements had gone from 10-15 hours to 4-6 hours. lCORRECT OR INCORRECT????

So if the shooting test takes 4-6 hours, which I sincerely doubt, and you spent 6 or 4 hours in the classroom to give you 10 total hours (I won't even address 15 possible hours, since there is no way it would take 9-11 hours on the range), you are correct. If the total time spent on the range is less and the total hours spent do not total 10 hours, I am correct.

I'd ask that anyone who has recently taken the required course to obtain a CHL in Texas come forward and tell us the amount of hours the classroom plus range shooting took.

Your statement:

"As for you ridiculing the word I used .... "encouraged" .... Here's the "encouraging" pitch to the nonshooter appearing for the CHL class. "

IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO TAKE THIS CLASS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A CHL.
AGREE OR DISAGREE????? You can put any spin you want on it, but it still won't make it a requirement.

I may be slicing bologna but you are slicing bullshit -- and not doing a very good job of it.

Still not admitting that 2014 -1 =2013???

And you think anyone gives a fuck about your opinion? Originally Posted by shanm

Yes. But they are wanting to be educated and informed, as opposed to being a "know-it-all" like you, who would rather get your information from a media rag!

But since you are wrong on the law and wrong on the facts, what else is there?

Have you now exhausted your knowledge of CHL training regulations?