TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Crossfire wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Negligence behind the wheel laws do nothing about the FACT that most accidents are caused by ignorant, inconsiderate fools, texting or talking on cell phones while driving. I suppose we should get rid of drinking while driving laws too. Maybe speed limit rules are completely wrong. We should be allowed to drive as fast as we want, as long as we are not being reckless.

Driving is not a right! It is a privilege. It should be regulated by the state to insure we have safe highways.

You have the facts to backup that claim? I am very doubtful that MOST accidents are caused by cell phone use - whether talking, texting, or whatever.

Just one of thousands. Google is your friend.

http://www.accidentinfo.com/blog/when-y ... -accident/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is not most of the accidents. They are caused by negligence and inatentaiveness, but not nessicarily by cell phone or texting.

LOL... splitting hairs does not mean texting while driving is not an issue. Is 28% confirmed enough for you? How many folks lied about it when questioned by police. The lady who hit me lied about it. I watched her texting as she hit me and she claimed she wasn't.

Crossfire wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Negligence behind the wheel laws do nothing about the FACT that most accidents are caused by ignorant, inconsiderate fools, texting or talking on cell phones while driving. I suppose we should get rid of drinking while driving laws too. Maybe speed limit rules are completely wrong. We should be allowed to drive as fast as we want, as long as we are not being reckless.

Driving is not a right! It is a privilege. It should be regulated by the state to insure we have safe highways.

You have the facts to backup that claim? I am very doubtful that MOST accidents are caused by cell phone use - whether talking, texting, or whatever.

Here are a few good links. If not most, I would say 28% is way to many. How many denied being on the phone and never made the numbers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02218.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accidentinfo.com/blog/when-y ... -accident/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sjfcontrol wrote:As I recall, that texting-while-driving law would have made it illegal to text -- even short messages -- while stopped at a stoplight.

Also, beware of unintended consequences. Make it illegal, and people will still text, but by keeping the phone in their lap, will be even LESS safe on the road.

Ultimately, laws of that nature are about control. The end result will be to make it illegal to use a cellphone in a car at all. It's not about phones (or guns), it's about control.

I am not sure of the reasoning here. It is illegal to drink and drive. I am not believing that this is causing people to hide the beer better. The sealbelt laws resulted in more people using seatbelts. I don't believe for one second that people will flagrantly violate the law. If they do, they will get a fine and they won't do it a second time. If we never passed laws because we believed folks will do what they want anyway, we would have no laws.

Phones are not in the same category as gun rights. You have a constitutional right to own guns. No such right exists with cell phones. I could also argue that you have a right to own a gun, but you have no right to use it in a way that endangers me or others.

It is not about "control". It is about all the dead people who are dead because morons are texting while driving. The real control is being perpetuated by cell phone companies. They stand to lose big money when it is illegal to text or talk on a cell phone while driving. Less texting and talking = less revenue for cell phone companies. That is the reality of the issue and the reason a sensible law concerning texting while driving will not get passed.

Negligence behind the wheel laws do nothing about the FACT that most accidents are caused by ignorant, inconsiderate fools, texting or talking on cell phones while driving. I suppose we should get rid of drinking while driving laws too. Maybe speed limit rules are completely wrong. We should be allowed to drive as fast as we want, as long as we are not being reckless.

Driving is not a right! It is a privilege. It should be regulated by the state to insure we have safe highways.

srothstein wrote:Ameer,

What do you call them when they support some bills such as the CHL law to begin with. They may not be pro-gun, but they are certainly not anti-gun either.

That puts them right where the vast majority of the public is, somewhere in the middle. But with legislators, there are always other factors to consider also. Some may be very pro-gun but have to vote against a bill for some other reason. For example, Perry vetoed a gun bill I really wanted to see passed this last session (pertained to retired officers). I cannot call him anti-gin for this. He explicitly stated the veto was because of an unrelated amendment that would have changed traffic laws (banned texting while driving). I am certain that his long term stance is close to mine on guns, but politics raised its ugly head.

By understanding some of the other factors involved, we (gun rights activists) can maintain a cordial working relationship with the legislators. That make us much more likely to get more of what we wanted passed than if we antagonize them over some votes. Long term, this is the only way to get to where we (well, I) want to be - a repeal of chapter 46 totally.

I did not realize Perry was in the pocket of cell phone companies. Knowing his stance on that just cost him my vote. Texting while driving is about the most ignorant thing a person can do.

koolaid wrote:The ten hour course is too long. It isn't supposed to include range time, fingerprinting, photos, lunch, waiting around for other people to shoot (and do fingerprints, photos, filling out forms, etc), but every person I have talked to who took a one day course has had this.

There is no good way to do a one day "all inclusive" 10 hour course, but that's what people want to buy, and that's what is being sold.

Even with all the extra time wasted on things other than instructional class time, there doesn't seem to be enough requried material to fill up 10 hours. My wife and I had two different instructors, and both of them spent the last hour or two of class randomly browsing youtube and showing vaguely gun related videos.

There also needs to be more emphasis from the state on making sure the instructors actually understand the laws. The amount of bad advice given out by my instructor, and the bad advice I've seen people talking about on forums that they got in their classes is sort of outrageous. Just a look at the debates over the law that get posted and reposted on this forum should be a clue that the classes are failing at what should be one of their core tasks.

Meh.

My instructor filled up the class spinning yarns of his past. A couple of his stories were repeats with different endings...LOL. It was three hours worth of information, expanded to fill ten hours of class time. It was pretty obvious he was trying real hard to balance keeping us awake with finding something to eat up ten hours.

If they would drop the class to a four hour class with shooting included, the cost of the class might just drop. Instructors could fit two classes in a day.

I always believed that many of the rules written into our CHL requirements were written to appease folks who were afraid of allowing concealed carry. If I remember correctly, we had strong opposition to the CHL when it was first passed. The long classes with shooting range and high fees were designed to make it appear that a CHL would not be available to just any Tom, Dick or Harry. It was also meant to give the appearance of "training" so the argument concerning unqualified people getting a CHL would be addressed. The "end around" permits cancel out the comfort level our legislature had in passing a CHL law in the first place. Granted, the comfort level of citizens having a CHL has increased over time, but that comfort level can easily turn to discomfort once word is out that any Tom, Dick or Harry can now legally carry a deadly weapon. Sentimate can turn on us real quick if one of these "easy license" holders screws up and uses their weapon in a wrong situation and a life is taken.

I know from my personal associations that my daughter and son in law both were forced to get the Utah permit because of the cost of getting a Texas CHL. Now they have no choice, but somehow it does not seem right that only wealthy people can aquire a CHL in Texas. Cut the course time in half and reduce the license fee to something people can afford. A CHL should not cost more than a drivers license.