Biggest "surprise" at your CCW class

[orionengnr]

No surprises at all. Thirty-plus students in each of my initial (2005) and refresher (2009) class. Every one of them shot well enough to easily complete the course.
Old, young, male, female, black, white, red, yellow and brown. Just a bunch of Texans exercising their rights. And refreshing to see.

God Bless Texas

 

[Mike J]

No class necessary in Georgia either. There are some great websites that help support the new ccw'er though.

Thanks for the reminder HGUNHNTR-I try to go back & review Georgias carry laws from time to time. It's about time for me to do it again.

 

[jad0110]

My biggest surprise?

The person standing right next to me shot herself in the foot . Her foot was 2' from mine.

That was surprising. Surprised her too.

Funny thing, it has kinda become legend in the entire region where I live. Everyone with a CCW, and most gunnies know about it. "You were THERE? And you were the one standing right next to her???" "Wow, what was it like?" "Was it messy?". Stops just short of "Can I have your autograph?"

The state says you only need to hit the target with 15 out of the 35 rounds to be considered proficient. I tend to disagree with that statement but that's the law."

When I took the course, the requirement was to hit a 12" x 12" square target at 1, 3, 5 and 7 yds 36/40. And not shoot yourself in the process.

All but one out of 35 or so passed .

Actually, most everyone shot reasonably well. Say, an average group size of 5" at 7 yards.

And at 1 yd (and maybe 3 yds, don't remember), we were required to fire one handed from the hip.

 

[801sureshot]

Biggest surprise at my CCW class? Hmmm.....the "criminal-looking" element taking the class. I actually said to my self, "That's the reason why I need to carry..."

(Yes...even the bad guys, without prior arrests, apply for CCW.... that's more reason why the GOOD guys need to.)

"criminal looking element" = it's a combination of factors...no set "profile"...but you know it when you see it.

So what does the "criminal element" look like? Last time I checked bad guys don't wear a uniform.

 

[sv51macross]

^ Yes, I have known several young individuals who look as you describe as "the criminal element", and all of them were fine people who had absolutely no significant ill intent towards society.

 

[CajunBass]

The only class we had to take for our CHP's was a basic NRA gun safety course. Hard to find any real surprises there.

"Back in the day" as they say, I used to help a buddy run the range for his classes for armed security guards. (I picked up a supply of 38 brass I'm still using.) Most of these people couldn't shoot for squat. However in their defense, most of them had absolutly no interest in shooting other than to qualify for a job, which was easy enough to do. They had most likely never fired a gun in their lives, and probably never would again.

I do remember this one guy however, who apparently somewhere along the line had gotten the idea that after he fired, he was supposed to pull the gun back over his head, in a two handed grip, 180 degrees from the target, directly at ME then pull it back on target.

He got ONE warning. The next time he got told to get off my range.

 

[spoon]

Surprise

The NRA CCW classes :banghead:

this is a pistol safety class, read the book --not a shooting class, home defense class, or law class. Remember it's safety only. If you want more or desire more you have to take the next class up, self defense- inside home defense, outside home defence. When the instructor goes past the safety limits he's out there on his own. Yes before taking the class I thought it would be more -- or different-- more on the lines of CCW how- when to or not to --or --not just safety....

 

[ny32182]

My biggest "surprise" was how easy the class was... I took it relatively early in my shooting career and had far less knowledge and skill at that time than I have now, but still could have done the entire written test just based on common sense, and the instructor commented on how good my shooting was, since I had put 50/50 rounds *anywhere on the B27 target* at the 3-15yd ranges, or whatever it is here (I forget now).

In retrospect I shouldn't have been surprised since our driving test is pretty much the same way... take a loop around an empty back road at 35mph, parallel park, take a written test, and you're good to drive anywhere on any freeway at any time of the day... but anyhow. I have mixed feelings on whether a class should be required to carry at all. I would tend toward thinking that one shouldn't be required, and with how easy ours is, I don't see the point of having it at all, other than the state getting $50, which I guess is the real motivation. If they *are* going to require a class, they could put some actual content or challenge into it.

It was just me and one friend of mine in the class at the time we took it, so I missed out on all the good horror stories like some are telling here.

 

[spoon]

ny32182
think of it as a hunter safety course-- they don't teach them to hunt anything, they teach them safety of fire arms. All and all it is good for them. And yes I think everybody should go through both. Seems to make more sense when you are just entering the sport than after you have been in it for years and years. They should have had this a long long time ago. If you know gun safety you don't learn much ( something my father taught me ) but if you don't you do learn something. This is where the class comes in. Now everybody should know safe handling of pistols.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

a local NRA instructor inadvertently shot one of his female students in the face a couple months ago in my area.

i think this instructor's CPL class career is over at this point.

you can prob find the article on google--it happened at target sports range in royal oak mi

 

[oldpuppymax]

Ky law requires 11 of 20 shots hit a life sized target at 21'. That and an 8 hour classroom course constitute the legal requirement for a CC license. I guess my only surprise was that just one individual out of 30 or so in the class had difficulty satisfying the shooting requirement. It was a gal in her late 50s, early 60s who had never used the pistol her husband (who took the course with her) had just purchased for her. It looked like a S&W .38 or .357 revolver. The instructor was quite patient with her and gave her a chance to fire a few practice rounds after she had initially missed the necessary 11 by 2 rounds. She wound up with 11 even on the second go-round. Seems to me that Americans are generally natural born shooters. No wonder leftists want to repeal the 2nd amendment. We actual Americans are too darned DANGEROUS to try to enslave!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

My surprises were not with the instruction, but the students. After being in several CHL classes now and help be a RSO for several more during the shooting quals, this is what has surprised me....

It is not uncommon for a person who has never shot to take a CHL and try to qualify.

It is not uncommon for those people who have never shot to actually pass the shooting quals.

In many of the classes, people have managed to wrap their non-dom thumb over their dom hand and have the slide gouge out tracks during recoil.

During slow fire, people can completely miss a full size silhouette target (not just the target but the paper as well) at 3 yards (and some still pass the overall test)

In three classes, I have seen people unload their carry ammo, load ball for the shooting quals, and then reload with carry ammo. The interesting part is that the carry ammo is the same carry ammo they loaded up when they last qualified years earlier and that the gun has remained unshot between qualifications.

Even people renewing their CHLs often show a significant lack of understanding of the law even though they have covered it previously in an earlier CHL class. For some reason, people just want to believe that if you shoot somebody outside, you need to drag them inside to make the shooting legal.

and lastly...
My mom, first in her 60s and now in her 70s has shot better than active duty cops taking the same course with her.

 

[spoon]

Well FMJ-- I can't find it.... sorry

 

[Jonah71]

The 70+ year old granny with the .38 spec in her purse that out shot all of us. That was unexpected. I was also surprised that when I left, I had a feeling of wasting most of a good day. And I shot so badly.

 

[DAdams]

The FL Class was ridiculous. No range time other than a revolver that shot rubber rounds at a metal target about 7 feet away.

An older gentleman in the class who "passed" but in my opinion shouldn't have qualified. Sweeping the class, poor handling techniqe, hands shaking like a leaf.

Took the class in TN a year ago and what surprised me was the average age being about 45 plus and a number of couples. There were many Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti's, Land Rovers in the lot.
My take, they had more to loose and wanted to keep it.

I also wasn't impressed that you could qualify shooting a .22, but that's just me.

 

[CoRoMo]

...I'm all for people wanting to defend themselves and take the steps to get a CCL. But...

...I'm all for gun rights....but...

...I do think it's a good requirement...

I'm always surprised by remarks like these from the "pro-2A" crowd; especially on a RKBA forum like this.

I remember a few individuals in my class that seemed unskilled, a few seemed to think the permit was a LE badge, and a few might have had questionable motives, but you'll never ever see/hear me claiming that a free man's right should be questioned, fettered, restricted, or otherwise require some arbitrary pre-qualification.

 

[jackstinson]

Took the class in TN a year ago and what surprised me was the average age being about 45 plus and a number of couples. There were many Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti's, Land Rovers in the lot. My take, they had more to lose and wanted to keep it.

Similar to when I took a CHL course class in Ohio; more older folk than younger and an interesting assortment of vehicles.
My take? As we get older, many of us figure out that we're no longer the invulnerable bad-asses we were (or thought we were) in our teens and twenties.
More to lose? I suppose some may have been worried with possessions, but most of the folks I talked to were only concerned with self-defense.
All of which doesn't surprise me a bit.

The CHL course I took was the NRA Basic Pistol course...period...page by page right out of the NRA book. It was designed so that no one failed, no one. Shooting was 50 rounds at a 3'x4' piece of paper at 50 feet....5 of those rounds in total darkness. There was no scoring. All of the guns and ammunition were supplied as part of the course.

Surprises? None really. It was a very basic course. I went to get the certificate and I got it.

 

[wishin]

I'm always surprised by remarks like these from the "pro-2A" crowd; especially on a RKBA forum like this.

I remember a few individuals in my class that seemed unskilled, a few seemed to think the permit was a LE badge, and a few might have had questionable motives, but you'll never ever see/hear me claiming that a free man's right should be questioned, fettered, restricted, or otherwise require some arbitrary pre-qualification.

You're right, but as a practical matter, there are too many idiots out there that shouldn't be carrying a weapon. Adds new meaning to self defense; more aptly put "defense from oneself".

 

[SG1]

You can't judge a book by its cover. I would rather see an "unscrupulous looking character" getting his permit legally than see a "upstanding looking character" carrying and/or owning a firearm illegally. Everyone has to learn, and learning has to start somewhere.

I was suprised how much my shooting improved after taking my class. My instructor actually helped us improve our shooting by correcting common mistakes we were making. And this was done using the plastic mock guns, but the improvement was evident to me at least when I performed the shooting requirement. Another suprise was that we didn't do the range qualification with our personally owned firearms. Due to noise (we were told), we qualified with .22 Rugers that the instructor provided. We did have to clean our own firearms at the end of the class to show that we could take down, clean and reassemble our own firearms.

I had a positive experience.

 

[CoRoMo]

I don't want to pull this thread off its topic. I just had to record my surprise at the comments that I saw.

...there are too many idiots out there...

Like when you're driving around town and another driver cuts you off, or maybe he crowds you with his truck, or he otherwise makes some obvious and bothersome maneuver, you might remark, "People like that shouldn't be given a driver's license"! I hear it all the time.

But it was probably just one mistake, and you witnessed it. That guy could be a safe and respectful driver, but he made that one move in front of you, and that's the impression he made on you.

I hear these same reactions when an unskilled or misguided individual wants to exercise his God-given rights. Rights that do not require anything at all the way a driver's license does. Guys who claim to be freedom lovers will say, "Some people just shouldn't be allowed to...".

It just bothers me how easy it must be to believe that not every free citizen should be allowed to exercise their rights.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

If someone LOOKS like a gangbanger they shouldn't be surprised or insulted if someone else thinks they are one!

 

[Wheeler44]

If someone LOOKS like a gangbanger they shouldn't be surprised or insulted if someone else thinks they are one!

I suppose the same goes for all...What do you look like to me....Not high road to print.

 

[JoeSlomo]

If someone LOOKS like a gangbanger they shouldn't be surprised or insulted if someone else thinks they are one!

Agree 1000%

That's why there are laws that punish impersonation of a police officer and other individuals.

If you look the part, don't be surprised when people expect you to play the part.

 

[SwampWolf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoRoMo
I'm always surprised by remarks like these from the "pro-2A" crowd; especially on a RKBA forum like this.

I remember a few individuals in my class that seemed unskilled, a few seemed to think the permit was a LE badge, and a few might have had questionable motives, but you'll never ever see/hear me claiming that a free man's right should be questioned, fettered, restricted, or otherwise require some arbitrary pre-qualification.

You're right, but as a practical matter, there are too many idiots out there that shouldn't be carrying a weapon. Adds new meaning to self defense; more aptly put "defense from oneself".

No BUTS from me. I think CoRoMo has it exactly right. As Americans having the God-given right to keep and bear arms, since when is the right of self-defense to be predicated on some politician's notion of who should be and who should not be "qualified" to carry a gun for self-protection? It's all well and good that people know how to handle a firearm safely and to know when or when not to use it in a self-defense scenario and I'm all for safe and competent ccw license holders BUT, as CoRoMo so aptly said: "...a free man's right should (never) be questioned, fettered, restricted, or otherwise require some arbitrary pre-qualification."

 

[JohnBT]

Out of 22 people in my class, only one shot better than I did. He put all the rounds into the middle and I jerked one shot low left about 3".

I was raised on mostly rifles and shotguns, so I was a bit surprised to even be in the top half.

(Mostly = 98%)

John