Inexperienced in Class

[RPB]

I wasn't a very good driver when I took my driver's license test.
There was also a period of years where I didn't even own a car.
I got better over time because it interested me in the first place, so I practiced more after becoming licensed.

[chasfm11]

I do not understand, how people buy a firearm and do not put the effort to train with it. Most likely if never used and stayed in a drawer or a safe, how one is supposed to shoot straight when the time to go bang is NOW!

They probably don't. But in the stories that I read, like the elderly woman who fired her gun for the very first time at a guy who broke into her house and missed him chest high, it isn't always necessary to shoot straight. This particular BG soiled his pants and left post haste. She stopped the threat.

Now, before the flames start coming my way, I don't advocate this approach. I agree that everyone who has any kind of a firearm should learn to handle it and shoot it safely. But there is just too much anecdotal evidence that suggests that having a firearm and being willing to use it in an emergency is sometimes all that is necessary. Realistically, an 80+ year old women is probably never going to be able to draw on an armed BG and win a gun fight like many of the rest of of practice for. I doubt that she would have the agility move towards cover quickly either, which in many accounts would leave her as a sitting duck.

I support the RKBA. People get to choose, within the law, how to exercise that right. Just because it isn't the way that I would do it or would even prefer others to do it doesn't make it wrong.

[chasfm11]

Even though you, no doubt, could pass a Class A CDL if you wanted to...what's the point? I have the utmost respect for over the road truckers and the licensing they have to go through... but many drive 100,000 miles+ a year, and they have less choice of where/when to drive. I see less imperative for making an RV driver such as yourself get a CDL for your discretionary trips. It's kind of like saying CHL'ers should meet the same standards as cops under TXCLEOSE.

OFF TOPIC ALERT
I took and passed (but not at 100%) the written part of the CDL without ever having studied. A lot of it has to do with things that would never affect an RVer. In Texas, those with RVs that weight more than 26,000lbs must take a non-CDL class A or Class B test that is a carbon copy of the CDL. One of the large RV driving tests is that you must back your RV into a loading dock Duh! The driving test contains few of elements that make driving an RV different from a regular passenger vehicle. What is does contain is an almost anal approach to the pre-trip inspection which is where many RVers flunk it. To me, its sole value is to weed out those who probably shouldn't be driving any vehicle.
OFF TOPIC ALERT OFF.

[texanron]

In the CHL class I took there were two folks that didn't shoot very well. They shot at an adequate enough level to pass the shooting part of the class but I did notice the instructor take time to speak with each indivdual about improving their shooting skills. Not much else one can do after that. There are plenty of resources for these folks to get the instruction they need or want. It all comes back to personal responsibility.
I'm in the group that think these folks are the ones that will hardly ever carry on their person if ever. Perhaps they think they need a CHL to carry a firearm in their MV.

[MasterOfNone]

I see both sides of this issue in my classes. I see some students getting frustrated because they have to wait for others who take more time to do everything. But I recognize that many people first get "into" guns because they want to carry for self defense, so a CHL class is some of the first training they seek. If a CHL class gets them started on learning, I'm thrilled.
To help them prepare, I have a pre-course info sheet that tells them about the class and what's expected of them. It encourages them to be proficient enough to handle their gun and pass the shooting proficiency before their class date, emphasizing that this is not a "how to shoot" class. But if someone shows up needing some instruction, I still accommodate them. I put them on a later firing relay and let one of the range staff work with them before firing. (Because we shoot before the range opens, someone is always available.) It is amazing what a short block of instruction can do for a new shooter. And if someone has to try a second time to pass, I usually have them do it after the class so I can spend more time with them.

[DFWTT]

I see both sides of this issue in my classes. I see some students getting frustrated because they have to wait for others who take more time to do everything. But I recognize that many people first get "into" guns because they want to carry for self defense, so a CHL class is some of the first training they seek. If a CHL class gets them started on learning, I'm thrilled.
To help them prepare, I have a pre-course info sheet that tells them about the class and what's expected of them. It encourages them to be proficient enough to handle their gun and pass the shooting proficiency before their class date, emphasizing that this is not a "how to shoot" class. But if someone shows up needing some instruction, I still accommodate them. I put them on a later firing relay and let one of the range staff work with them before firing. (Because we shoot before the range opens, someone is always available.) It is amazing what a short block of instruction can do for a new shooter. And if someone has to try a second time to pass, I usually have them do it after the class so I can spend more time with them.

This is the kind of answer I hoped to get.

[zero4o3]

Were you born with all of this knowledge, or did you have to learn it at some point? They just aren't as far along as you are. Should they give up the right to self defense until they know a little more?

No, I had to learn it like everyone else, I just got a little uneasy that's all. Like I said I'm all for people exercising thier rights. That is not my debate.

I know a few different people who didnt want to own a gun until they had their chl, for what ever reason took the class got a gun after and then started training with it

[drjoker]

Nah, there's no need to worry about inexperienced CHL running about.

First of all, that's what the CHL class is for, to give them a basic level of competence in skill and legal knowledge regarding the self-defense use of a gun. Then, they have to PASS A TEST before they're allowed to get the CHL. So, I don't see what's the problem. In my CHL class, 2 people failed the CHL shooting test and were told to practice some more before returning to re-take the shooting test.

Secondly, most people who I know have a CHL almost never carry. Out of the 5 guys in my DPC shooting group, 2 elderly gentlemen who were retired carry regularly while the 3 working age guys almost never carry. None of our wives regularly carry, but we all have CHLs. Two girls and one guy (myself) at work have a CHL. None of us carry regularly. The only times that I carry are when I have to go to the ATM/Redbox machines at night or when I dine at a BBQ restaurant in South Dallas at night.

I don't even have guns in the house and my wife is personally against guns, but politically for constitutional rights, so even my wife has a CHL which brings us to the last point. Safe, legal, and ethical gun handling are a no-brainer. I mean, if you haven't assaulted anyone until you took your CHL class, you're not going to suddenly assault people with a gun. Any idiot can be taught never to point a gun at anything/one you don't mean to shoot, treat all guns as loaded, and keep your finger off the trigger until you want to shoot. Gun safety ain't rocket science. Everyone in her CHL class was paired off in twos for the shooting test. When she told her shooting partner that she never touched a gun before, his eyes bulged like a frog. However, he was placated when he saw her make a big one holed group with only one miss and one flier. "Are you sure you've never touched a gun before?" he asked her. Glocks are amazingly easy for beginners to shoot. That's why her CHL class only stocks Glock 19s and 17s for her class.

[Katygunnut]

I see people driving cars every day that make me very nervous. I drive defensively to avoid getting involved in their potential accidents. I've driven a semi commercially. I had never driven commercially before but had some experience driving a semi on a farm. I rented a truck, took the test and passed and got my CDL. I suppose some experienced truck drivers would have been bothered by that. I've seen truck drivers that I would avoid like the plague. They follow too close at too high a speed and don't pay attention to their driving.

This is America. Until you prove you can't be trusted with something, if you can pass a basic proficiency test you get the license and you are free to go.

There are two possible approaches to governing. You can either require some proof of proficiency and leave people alone if they qualify or you can try to legislate every possible contingency to make things "safe" for the rest of us. The former looks a lot more like freedom than the latter.

As an individual you have choices as well. You can hang around the incompetent people or you can avoid them. You can attempt to educate the incompetent people or you can ignore them. None of those choices are "right" or "wrong". They're simply choices. I don't like people much, so I avoid crowded places and don't go to many public events. That's just me. Other people love to be in big crowds and around lots of people. You apparently don't like incompetent gun handlers. So you have choices. You can either avoid them or attempt to teach them. But what you should never try to do is impose your choices on everyone else. (I'm not suggesting that you are suggesting that we do that.) If we are going to maintain any semblance of freedom in America, we're going to have to accept the fact that some people won't be as conscientious about things that we care about as we are.

[Katygunnut]

along the same lines, should firearms proficient 35 year olds that never "hunted" be required to take the "Hunter's Safety Course" with 12 year olds in order to get a (rather expensive) hunting license?

Some times the "rules" really don't make sense.

I've never hunted (animals), and I am fairly proficient with firearms having served in the Army during Desert Storm and given the fact that I have been shooting rifles and handguns for over 20 years.

I recently decided that I want to get into hunting. After doing some research on various hunting rules and restrictions, I quickly decided that I should probably take the Hunter Safety Course just because I have no experience in the field and could use that level of education. I am not "required" by the state to take the course due to my age, but I still feel compelled. It does not bother me at all that there will be 12 year old's in the same class and I'm sure that some of them will be more educated than I am about some aspects of what we are learning.

So I guess my answer is that a similarly situated 35 year old "should" take the course. I don't know that I would make it a "requirement", but I do know that their lack of knowledge should give them ZERO excuse if they negligently injure someone or violate a law while they are hunting.

[Crossfire]

along the same lines, should firearms proficient 35 year olds that never "hunted" be required to take the "Hunter's Safety Course" with 12 year olds in order to get a (rather expensive) hunting license?

Some times the "rules" really don't make sense.

I've never hunted (animals), and I am fairly proficient with firearms having served in the Army during Desert Storm and given the fact that I have been shooting rifles and handguns for over 20 years.

I recently decided that I want to get into hunting. After doing some research on various hunting rules and restrictions, I quickly decided that I should probably take the Hunter Safety Course just because I have no experience in the field and could use that level of education. I am not "required" by the state to take the course due to my age, but I still feel compelled. It does not bother me at all that there will be 12 year old's in the same class and I'm sure that some of them will be more educated than I am about some aspects of what we are learning.

So I guess my answer is that a similarly situated 35 year old "should" take the course. I don't know that I would make it a "requirement", but I do know that their lack of knowledge should give them ZERO excuse if they negligently injure someone or violate a law while they are hunting.

The Hunter Education class is not so much about firearms proficiency as it is about safety in the field, and following the various laws regarding hunting. How to identify different birds, how to field dress a deer, what to do if you get lost in the woods - that sort of thing.

[WildBill]

So I guess my answer is that a similarly situated 35 year old "should" take the course. I don't know that I would make it a "requirement", but I do know that their lack of knowledge should give them ZERO excuse if they negligently injure someone or violate a law while they are hunting.

If I decided to hunt again I would take the course. Years ago I used to be a certified hunter safety instructor. The class that I helped teach went far beyond the state's requirements for gun handling. The primary instructor had some land in "the country" and set up an "obstacle course" consisting of a patch of brush, a barbed wire fence, a wooden fence, a pile of wood, and at the very end, a pickup truck. All of the students were required to go through the course with live ammunition and demonstrate the proper way to handle the gun in each situation. Just about every one passed and there was never an AD/ND.

[2farnorth]

We had a couple in class that fit this thread. She had never fired a gun before and he only in the military. Our instructor let them use two of his own guns (private range). He worked closely with her teaching the safety and mechanics of shooting. Even showed different stances til she found one that was comfortable.. Yes it slowed the class down a little, but the rest of were us patient and it worked out well.. Both of them qualified equal to or better than me (247). ( Darn these glasses that won't focus the front sight )

[Katygunnut]

along the same lines, should firearms proficient 35 year olds that never "hunted" be required to take the "Hunter's Safety Course" with 12 year olds in order to get a (rather expensive) hunting license?

Some times the "rules" really don't make sense.

I've never hunted (animals), and I am fairly proficient with firearms having served in the Army during Desert Storm and given the fact that I have been shooting rifles and handguns for over 20 years.

I recently decided that I want to get into hunting. After doing some research on various hunting rules and restrictions, I quickly decided that I should probably take the Hunter Safety Course just because I have no experience in the field and could use that level of education. I am not "required" by the state to take the course due to my age, but I still feel compelled. It does not bother me at all that there will be 12 year old's in the same class and I'm sure that some of them will be more educated than I am about some aspects of what we are learning.

So I guess my answer is that a similarly situated 35 year old "should" take the course. I don't know that I would make it a "requirement", but I do know that their lack of knowledge should give them ZERO excuse if they negligently injure someone or violate a law while they are hunting.

The Hunter Education class is not so much about firearms proficiency as it is about safety in the field, and following the various laws regarding hunting. How to identify different birds, how to field dress a deer, what to do if you get lost in the woods - that sort of thing.

This is exactly why I am taking it. There is alot that I need to learn in these areas.

[¿Qué?]

I've attended exactly two CHL courses. In each one, I encountered what I felt were more inexperienced shooters than I was comfortable with.

I know what you mean. There is a lot of inexperience in the initial classes. Students who have never read the penal code. While I am all for 2A and a citizens right to carry, I can't help but feel a little uneasy thinking about all the people carrying with very little to nil training on the weapons laws, legal justifications for force and deadly force, carry / no carry situations and so on. Obeying the law is my concern. Knowing what I know now about all of these things and how easy it is to make the wrong move or decision, I can't understand how a prudent person would make the decision to come to class so utterly unprepared. I believe that some will choose to continue their education after class, but what about those that don't?