TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Abraham wrote:Hoi Polloi,

Thank you and no hard feelings.

Admittedly, my post was cryptic.

What I was weakly alluding to is what seems, emphasis on seems, as I could be quite wrong, is a sudden increase of what appears to be questions by very new members that if answered poorly would make CHLers look like vigilantes. There seems to be a very recent pattern of this type question emerging - though again, I could be wrong.

As for asking questions - I was told in the Army that no question is stupid or wrong and I believe that. It often take courage to ask questions...

I think that those very scenarios that are posed tend to bring out the best and the worst among us that post...and many times I suspect they are designed to do just that.
Unfortunately the medium of internet posting is not conducive to making an accurate assessment of who is asking an honest question and who is baiting a forum.

Indeed--or of who is honestly responding, for that matter.

Hoi,

How were these questions/issues covered in your class?

As you well know, I signed up here to answer the specific question of why I had not yet taken a class. I just asked my husband how his class handled it. His answer was that he does not remember them covering it and what he remembers on this topic is all from forums he reads.

Purplehood wrote:

Abraham wrote:Hoi Polloi,

Thank you and no hard feelings.

Admittedly, my post was cryptic.

What I was weakly alluding to is what seems, emphasis on seems, as I could be quite wrong, is a sudden increase of what appears to be questions by very new members that if answered poorly would make CHLers look like vigilantes. There seems to be a very recent pattern of this type question emerging - though again, I could be wrong.

As for asking questions - I was told in the Army that no question is stupid or wrong and I believe that. It often take courage to ask questions...

I think that those very scenarios that are posed tend to bring out the best and the worst among us that post...and many times I suspect they are designed to do just that.
Unfortunately the medium of internet posting is not conducive to making an accurate assessment of who is asking an honest question and who is baiting a forum.

Indeed--or of who is honestly responding, for that matter.

Abraham wrote:"There are so many more possibilities than calling people who ask questions lazy idiots who didn't pay attention in their wonderful, all-encompassing classes. "

Presumably, that statement wasn't directed at me?

If it was - Where in my post did call anyone lazy idiots and what prompts the sarcasm?

It wasn't sarcasm, but it was unintentionally sensationalistic and I apologize.

I read it as first making a negative judgment about the need to ask such questions and the frequency which you perceive them to be on the increase in this forum and second proposing one of two sources for that need: poor quality of students or poor quality of instruction, then eliminating the instruction as a possible issue. The way I read it would only make a negative statement about the questioner--specific questioners on this board--surmising they must have been poor students who didn't pay attention. I then responded hyperbolically in haste. I apologize again.

Abraham wrote:I wonder why so many hypothetical shoot scenarios posed by new members keep popping up?

According to the questions, it seems many CHL instructors aren't performing quality instruction or the student isn't paying attention or ...

(I find it hard to believe quality CHL instruction has gone down. If anything, CHL instruction is better than it's ever been.)

There are so many more possibilities than calling people who ask questions lazy idiots who didn't pay attention in their wonderful, all-encompassing classes.

Maybe more people are interested in the topic of carrying and are coming here before they go to CHL classes.

Or maybe they see one thing that wasn't covered in their classes or wasn't covered completely or accurately and they start to doubt their entire instruction, so they ask about some particular area that is gray or murky to them to verify what they were taught.

Or maybe there are more people getting CHLs and if each instructor said one thing incorrectly or ambiguously or in a way that wasn't understood that with the greater numbers of people getting their CHLs if they all asked only one clarifying question then there would be a great increase in such posts.

The possibilities are numerous.

Nah...

Channeling le femme Nikita...

An anti would not have used those scenarios or words at all. A veiled anti's post would be all about what would happen if you shot in such-and-such really iffy scenario and it accidentally killed this child or something else that would look really bad to respond with, "Oh well! It's legal!" Then when people were saying it would be an iffy shoot and unwise, the anti would come back and try to trap the posters into the intended "Oh well!" response by changing details, exaggerating, and reinforcing the whole sad puppy dog type thing.

This is just a guy who got really poor instruction. He's clearly been reading a few back posts since he referenced the state fair thread, saw some of the hypothetical scenarios that are played through here, and jumped in with his own poorly formed scenario due to his poorly formed training, which was not something he was really aware of. The difference in what he was taught and what other classes are taught only came to light after the fact, highlighting the disparity and therefore the difference in knowledge base.

Now he knows. I'm sure someone can recommend some training in the Dallas area for him where he can spend some time with people who like to shoot...safely and legally.

How'd I do with being a profiler? I think I could be on TV!