Utah CHL Instructor Story on WFAA

[VoiceofReason]

I just realized I have been looking at this all wrong. I have been trying to get my wife to go to the range with me, learn to shoot and get her CHL. She won’t do it.

With a Utah license, she won’t have to shoot. I can buy her a 9mm and a 16 round clip, load it for her and tell her “just point it at the BG and keep pulling the trigger until he falls down or the gun is empty”. With a 16 round clip she won’t even have to know how to change clips.

This might solve my problem.

[skub]

If you are going to argue that it is all about the money, then you cannot forget the Utah CWP instructors who advertise their Utah classes as a way to get around a Texas CHL. Are you going to argue that their motives are based on principle, or are they in it for the money too? I would say that advertising is at the top of list of things driven by money.

The Utah instructors who are advertising are doing it because they believe that it is in their self-interest to do so... Maybe that is for money, maybe it is for principle, but regardless, it is something that they believe to be in their self-interest. To do otherwise is not rational behavior. I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with doing it for money. You just need to be honest about it. Capitalism is GOOD.

Sometimes, we do things that are not in our self-interest, but rarely intentionally. For us guys, it is part of surviving long enough to propagate our genes. Up until 25 or so, us guys tend to do really stupid things -- usually preceded by something like, "Yo! Check this out!"... It's one of the reasons that more males are born than females -- up to 25 or so, our life expectancy is not all that great... As I've often said, the leading cause of death to guys before 25 or so is testosterone... After 25 or so, it is estrogen, but it is a very slow and painful death...

In an earlier post, you made a statement that seemed to impugn the motives of those opposed to what these Utah instructors are doing...

CollinLeon wrote:
As in most things in life, if you want to find the real reason for something, all you have to do is "follow the money"...

The people who are making a big deal of this are either against concealed carry completely (and just want to use this to nibble away at our 2nd Amendment rights) or they have a financial interest in having Texas only accept the CHLs from other states if they are not Texas residents.

As I read this comment, I interpret you to be saying that there are two, and only two reasons that one would oppose their tactics:

1. They are against the 2nd Amendment.
2. They are motivated by money.

Your comment leaves these two options as the only possibilities. This interpretation is supported by the post that I responded to...

I say just look at who is against it... If they are CHL instructors, then they have a financial interest in Texas residents being required to get a Texas CHL since any Utah instructors are taking away their business. The media makes a bid deal about it because for the most part, the media is full of a bunch of leftist pinko's who are against the 2nd Amendment anyway.

If you are going to argue that it is all about the money, then you cannot forget the Utah CWP instructors who advertise their Utah classes as a way to get around a Texas CHL. Are you going to argue that their motives are based on principle, or are they in it for the money too? I would say that advertising is at the top of list of things driven by money.

So, I can reasonably understand you to say that if you are against what these Utah instructors are doing, you are either...

1. A leftist pinko
2. Motivated by money.

Now this last one may not seem bad to you, but in my view, and I think in many of the people here, your statement essentially accuses them of being greedy or mercenary. It does not leave them the option of being motivated by something higher, like principle. Now, please understand, I am all for capitalism, but capitalism without principles leaves room for all kinds of evil - a drug dealer, a pimp, or a thief could all be considered "capitalists" if the pursuit of money is the only motivation.

So, my first point is that, whether you want to recognize it or not, you have presumed to know the motives of everyone opposed to what these Utah instructors are doing, and you have impugned those motives.

Now, my second point is that rational debate requires you to be consistent in your treatment of the two sides of the issue. Of the two options you present, the Texas CHL instructors that you mention cannot be presumed to be lefty pinkos who oppose the 2nd Amendment, so that means that they can only be motivated by greed. If that is the only option for them, then it is only rational to assume that it is the only option for the Utah instructors. But you do not do that - you allow that they may be motivated by principle...

The Utah instructors who are advertising are doing it because they believe that it is in their self-interest to do so... Maybe that is for money, maybe it is for principle, but regardless, it is something that they believe to be in their self-interest. To do otherwise is not rational behavior. I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with doing it for money. You just need to be honest about it. Capitalism is GOOD.

Sometimes, we do things that are not in our self-interest, but rarely intentionally. For us guys, it is part of surviving long enough to propagate our genes. Up until 25 or so, us guys tend to do really stupid things -- usually preceded by something like, "Yo! Check this out!"... It's one of the reasons that more males are born than females -- up to 25 or so, our life expectancy is not all that great... As I've often said, the leading cause of death to guys before 25 or so is testosterone... After 25 or so, it is estrogen, but it is a very slow and painful death...

So, my second point is that you are inconsistent in your treatment of the two sides.

There is one last point that I feel compelled to make - your notion that, "Sometimes, we do things that are not in our self-interest, but rarely intentionally," is, I believe, mistaken. We could not have enjoyed our recent Independence Day celebration if that were true. Men do not willingly and persistently go to war and die for their country because they believe it is in their self-interest. They do so because they believe in higher values like liberty, justice and sacrifice for others.

[CollinLeon]

There is one last point that I feel compelled to make - your notion that, "Sometimes, we do things that are not in our self-interest, but rarely intentionally," is, I believe, mistaken. We could not have enjoyed our recent Independence Day celebration if that were true. Men do not willingly and persistently go to war and die for their country because they believe it is in their self-interest. They do so because they believe in higher values like liberty, justice and sacrifice for others.

I think that one could argue that a person does not go to war truly believing that he is going to die... He might think that it is possible, but he believes that somehow he is going to be one of the ones who do not die... Then again, one of the symptoms of being young is that you think that you are invulnerable -- otherwise us guys would not do all the stupid things that we do at that age...

Hopefully this post makes it though the censors... I've noticed a few of mine disappearing from yesterday...

[The Annoyed Man]

I just realized I have been looking at this all wrong. I have been trying to get my wife to go to the range with me, learn to shoot and get her CHL. She won’t do it.

With a Utah license, she won’t have to shoot. I can buy her a 9mm and a 16 round clip, load it for her and tell her “just point it at the BG and keep pulling the trigger until he falls down or the gun is empty”. With a 16 round clip she won’t even have to know how to change clips.

This might solve my problem.

Yeah, and that way she doesn't have to worry about whether or not there is anything behind her target that she doesn't want to hit, or any innocent bystanders, or anything like that. She can just blaze away.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hopefully this post makes it though the censors... I've noticed a few of mine disappearing from yesterday...

Geeze, I wish they would. Your pollyanna act is getting really tired. Fortunately for you, but unfortunately for me, you're not being censored, unless you call enforcement of rules which you agreed to when you joined the forum "censorship." On the other hand, if you only cynically "agreed" so that your membership registration would go through but you had no intention of abiding by them, then that makes you a deceitful person. I would like to think better of you than that. Can you please address this?

And thank you Skub for pointing out the logical inconsistencies. I take note that he did not address that charge, it not being convenient to the making of his case.

[CollinLeon]

Geeze, I wish they would. Your pollyanna act is getting really tired. Fortunately for you, but unfortunately for me, you're not being censored, unless you call enforcement of rules which you agreed to when you joined the forum "censorship." On the other hand, if you only cynically "agreed" so that your membership registration would go through but you had no intention of abiding by them, then that makes you a deceitful person. I would like to think better of you than that. Can you please address this?

I've had posts censored for apparently saying a simple "LMAO"... Ooops... Looks like this one will get censored also... Oh well... I guess my definition of profanity is a bit different than the censors of this board... Come to think of it, a quick search of the board comes up with 25 instances of someone putting that in a posting. They didn't get censored, but I did...

[Hoi Polloi]

I just realized I have been looking at this all wrong. I have been trying to get my wife to go to the range with me, learn to shoot and get her CHL. She won’t do it.

With a Utah license, she won’t have to shoot. I can buy her a 9mm and a 16 round clip, load it for her and tell her “just point it at the BG and keep pulling the trigger until he falls down or the gun is empty”. With a 16 round clip she won’t even have to know how to change clips.

This might solve my problem.

That's all that is needed for car carry. It hasn't seemed to create a rash of improperly trained housewives shooting up the street and innocent bystanders. I know you were being sarcastic, but that method seems to be working out OK for many.

Now I'm not arguing that it couldn't be handled better. But how much needs to be legislated as a governmental requirement and how much can be left to personal responsibility? From a practical standpoint, she's less likely to use it or to be successful in its use without practice. It seems the average citizen having a gun, even without more training, does not lead to concerning situations from a governmental standpoint, though.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Geeze, I wish they would. Your pollyanna act is getting really tired. Fortunately for you, but unfortunately for me, you're not being censored, unless you call enforcement of rules which you agreed to when you joined the forum "censorship." On the other hand, if you only cynically "agreed" so that your membership registration would go through but you had no intention of abiding by them, then that makes you a deceitful person. I would like to think better of you than that. Can you please address this?

I've had posts censored for apparently saying a simple "LMAO"... Ooops... Looks like this one will get censored also... Oh well... I guess my definition of profanity is a bit different than the censors of this board... Come to think of it, a quick search of the board comes up with 25 instances of someone putting that in a posting. They didn't get censored, but I did...

Actually, I'm going to leave your last post as clear evidence that you were banned because of your uncontrollable arrogance and feelings of entitlement. You intentionally post something you know violates our rules (hardly a first for you), then taunt us to edit or delete your post. Well your plan backfired; your post didn't get deleted, you did.

You are also incorrect about there being 25 instances where the abbreviation you used being left in other members' posts. There were actually 31, unless I miscounted. With over 415,000 posts, I hope you'll understand that I don't plan to complain to the volunteer Moderators that they missed 31 over a 5 year period. That's right, the other posts of which you complain span a period of five years, but you didn't bother to mention that when you were whining about alleged unequal treatment at the hands of the Moderators.

Here are the dates (I can't believe I spent time doing this):

7/10 (yours), 6/10, 2/10, 9/09, 11/08, 7/08, 6/08, 12/07, 10/07, 9/07 (3), 8/07 (2), 3/07, 5/06 (2), 4/06 (2), 3/06, 2/06 (2), 1/06, 12/05 (2), 11/05 (4), 9/05, 7/05 for a total of 31 over five years and 415,000+ posts. Good job Moderators!

Chas.

[VoiceofReason]

I just realized I have been looking at this all wrong. I have been trying to get my wife to go to the range with me, learn to shoot and get her CHL. She won’t do it.

With a Utah license, she won’t have to shoot. I can buy her a 9mm and a 16 round clip, load it for her and tell her “just point it at the BG and keep pulling the trigger until he falls down or the gun is empty”. With a 16 round clip she won’t even have to know how to change clips.

This might solve my problem.

That's all that is needed for car carry. It hasn't seemed to create a rash of improperly trained housewives shooting up the street and innocent bystanders. I know you were being sarcastic, but that method seems to be working out OK for many.

Now I'm not arguing that it couldn't be handled better. But how much needs to be legislated as a governmental requirement and how much can be left to personal responsibility? From a practical standpoint, she's less likely to use it or to be successful in its use without practice. It seems the average citizen having a gun, even without more training, does not lead to concerning situations from a governmental standpoint, though.

OK, I have been exposed. Don’t be too hard on me for using a little sarcasm occasionally. I don’t make a habit of it.

Your rational well considered reply is appreciated.

[Hoi Polloi]

OK, I have been exposed. Don’t be too hard on me for using a little sarcasm occasionally. I don’t make a habit of it.

Your rational well considered reply is appreciated.

We're all a little facetious sometimes, aren't we?

[The Annoyed Man]

Charles, thank you. And you're right... the arrogance and sense of entitlement that attends such personalities is nauseating. I wonder if there was any significance to his choice of the words "Republic of Texas, S.E. Sector" in his location field.

[VoiceofReason]

OK, I have been exposed. Don’t be too hard on me for using a little sarcasm occasionally. I don’t make a habit of it.

Your rational well considered reply is appreciated.

We're all a little facetious sometimes, aren't we?

Actually I wanted to see how long it would take to get a rise out of someone with my post. It took exactly 34 minutes for TAM to call me out on it. It probably took him 10 minutes to compose himself and his answer so it would get past the moderators. I sent him a PM and swore him to secrecy. I wanted to see how many would flame me on it and argue my point for me.

Then you had to come along like Mr. Spock and ruin my fun. Oh well, it was still a good answer.

By the way- thanks Charles for banning CollinLeon I was trying to ignore him but he was starting to get irritating. Maybe he will go somewhere else and play his game.

[KFP]

Charles, thank you. And you're right... the arrogance and sense of entitlement that attends such personalities is nauseating. I wonder if there was any significance to his choice of the words "Republic of Texas, S.E. Sector" in his location field.

And the "War of Northern Aggression."

Regardless, hopefully that's settled!

[fishcharmer]

Long-time lurker here. I'm not sure what the big deal is about the Utah CHL. I recently obtained my Utah CHL (CWP). I originally took my Texas CHL course in February '09, wife got laid off right after and writing a check to Texas for my CHL just wasn't in our restricted budget. She got her job back but by the time we had the spare money to write that check to Texas it had already been a year since I took the Texas course and I would have had to re-take it again. I had a perfect score on the range qualification in my Texas course. I heard about the Utah license and it made financial sense to me to obtain it. I don't believe that folks specifically go out of their way to get the Utah CHL because it does not require range qualification or a test. The Texas course I took was stuffed with a bunch of "filler" material, funny YouTube videos (FBI guy shoots self in foot, "Gun Free Zone" and many many many more) to make that 10 hour time requirement. I personally think it would behoove Texas to cut to the chase and have instructors teach what should be known in regard to the law, legalities and responsibilities and then have some sort of assessment whether it be an actual test (Texas course) or like the "test" in my Utah class where it was an open discussion powerpoint type of "test" (there were 3 guys in my Utah course). Again, I don't believe that folks would get their CHL only to avoid having any type of training or proficiency with the weapon they plan on carrying. Afterall, legally carrying a firearm is a big responsibility that I don't think anyone takes lightly. I belive the main factor in folks getting their Utah CHL is plain to see. Bottom line, it is less of a monetary commitment and requires less classroom time. Those were my deciding factors anyways. Let the flaming begin.

[The Annoyed Man]

Let the flaming begin.

Naaahhh. I like sushi.