TexasCHLforum.com

Crossfire wrote:

roberts wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:An online class created by DPS could ensure there is some bare minimum standard of instruction.

Apparently, you have never taken a class created by DPS.

I didn't say that. You have attributed Roberts' statement to me. I have taken classes created by DPS and they are, in my opinion, bare minimum.

mr.72 wrote:Again I think this misses the point entirely. Rather than making an effort to make the class more difficult, challenging, or valuable, we need to work to get rid of the requirement altogether. It is unconstitutional (subject to your interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution...

You're missing MY point entirely. You're so caught up in the constitutionality and the fact that the class or license shouldn't even be required that you're actually in favor of further dumbing down the class so it truly is a complete waste of time. This are two separate and distinct issues. We can argue the constitutionality, and I'll probably agree with you. That's not the point. The point is we have what we have. The license IS required. The class IS required. As long as we're required to do it, let's do it well.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Now on the other hand, I would sure hate to have a situation where the political climate turned against us because the general public got worried we were all going to shoot up the place for lack of proper classes.

Texas' CHL requirements are more involved than most other states. That's not my point. I don't believe the class should be more involved. In fact, I believe we shouldn't require a CHL in the first place. I'm simply saying that if Texas is going to license instructors and require classes, don't make a mockery of the entire program by asking absurd questions on the test. What we end up with is a 10 hour class that sounds good on paper but, in reality leaves it up to the instructor as to whether or not the students actually learn anything. The test certainly doesn't challenge the student on the material. Why bother?

For those of you who feel like an online system will prevent fraud, a test that actually covers the material would do the same thing. Is fraud among CHL instructors so widespread that this is a legitimate reason for going the online route? I doubt it. Anyway, it's unlikely they'll go this route anytime soon, if they do at all.

Does anyone actually take the defensive driving class seriously? And who here has ever taken it because they actually wanted to learn something? Most people take defensive driving because they have to, not because they want to. It's a royal pain in the behind and folks do everything they can to put as little effort into it as possible.

If we're going to require a license to carry, I believe the curriculum should actually mean something and the test should challenge the students. Distilling the class down to an online course takes away from the importance of the material. A good portion of the state curriculum is pedantic administrative code that's only relevant because of the concept of CHL. The Non-violent Dispute Resolution is a waste of time and serves only to appease the lefties who believe CHL holders will pull their gun and shoot every time they get angry. The Safe Handling and Storage of Firearms is a useful module, but the state's curriculum is a bit thin. Everyone who owns a gun (even those who don't) should WANT to endure the Use of Force and Deadly Force module. The subject of deadly force is, um, deadly serious. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I believe the impact of this section would be lost in an online setting.

I find it interesting that the main interest in online CHL is convenience, and the justification for accepting an inferior method of instruction is that we shouldn't have to do it anyway. Maybe I'm just too close to this subject to be objective, but I genuinely believe that many CHL holders attend the class expecting a long day of dry material that would require toothpicks to keep their eyes open; a necessary evil if they want to carry a gun. Fortunately, most of my students inform me that they were pleasantly surprised and feel like they really learned something; much more than they expected. I believe the difference between the students going through the motions and actually learning depends on a creating interest with a personal connection; something I don't see happening online.

We had a discussion on another forum where a poster believed the curriculum should cover more on the subject of weapon handling, drawing your weapon, and shooting tactics. The argument against this involved the fact that tactical shooting isn't learned in a single lesson, there isn't enough time, etc. The poster suggested that we add a couple of hours to the class. How many people would pay more for a 12 hour CHL class when they can do it for less money in 10 hours? The sad fact is most people only put as much effort into this as is absolutely required, nothing more.

mr.72 wrote:gotta love the so-called "defenders of our rights" who show their elitism once the barrier to lawful carry begins to wear thin.

it's not a right if I have to acquire a license. That's a privilege.

and let's face it: some of us really get a boost out of knowing that we have a privilege that others do not.

the license requirement in itself is an infringement of our rights.

Call it what you will. I take issue with the state creating an effective industry and then killing it with the stroke of a pen. Personally, I make my living elsewhere, but the classes are a nice side job. More than that, I enjoy teaching and I feel like I'm making a difference.

I don't believe a license should be required to carry, but it is... and here we are. As long as the state is going to require that CHL holders take a class and we instructors are required to teach certain concepts, I'd appreciate it if the test was at least a bit challenging and actually addressed the pertinent material. Otherwise, we're making a mockery of the whole program. I'm not one of them, but I'd be willing to bet that there are instructors out there who do bare minimum in the teaching department because the test is so very simple.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: On one renewal, the Instructor will go to another Instructor to shoot the course, then two years later we will have to go to DPS to shoot again.

Chas.

That's what we were told at the last instructor renewal, although the trooper said DPS is considering moving the CHL student test to an online vendor and HINTED that they were discussing the possibility of online CHL video courses. It was a big IF and LONG WAY OFF hint, but the fact that they're even seriously talking about it is bothersome. I'm afraid this could go the way of Defensive Driving.

I take this very seriously, but I get the idea that DPS does not. The whole program seems to have been created with a wink and a nod. The test questions are embarrassingly absurd and they concentrate on the more trivial concepts. In my opinion, a quarter of the test should be dedicated to the use of and consequences of using force and deadly force. Another quarter should address places and situations the CHL holder can't carry. To me, the test insults the intelligence of everyone who takes it. They should at least attempt to make it challenging, rather than...

John has 2 apples and Sally gives him 3 more. How many apples does John have?
a) Purple
b) Gettysburg Address
c) Sir Isaac Newton
d) 5