TexasCHLforum.com

Embalmo wrote:My class was full of people who'd obviously never loaded of fired a handgun. Why would someone want to gain their license to carry if they weren't into shooting and handling handguns already? I certainly wouldn't have taken my driving test if I hadn't practiced driving. Maybe a range punch card should be required to prove that the student has some range time under their belt.

Lots of people get their CHL that really aren't into shooting and guns. They just want to be able to protect themselves. I think they need to understand that a little training and practice will enable them to protect themselves a little better and safer.

There is some criticism about people not being able to load their mags. I understand that people who load the mags backwards, are showing a lack of sophistication and familiarity. But some of the most vulnerable, might have problems loading due to age and arthritis. There is no reason that I can think of that they shouldn't be able to get some help during their qualifications.

Jago668 wrote:Personally I think it should be the X circle is 5 points, drop 1 point per ring out of that. So the 10 ring would be 4, the 9 ring a 3, the 8 ring a 2, the 7 ring 1. On the paint would be 0, on paper off paint would be -5, and off target would be -10. Keep the same course of fire, and same score to pass. If you can't pass on a well lit range, shooting at known distances, while standing still, and a stationary target. You shouldn't be carrying out where you can so easily hit innocent people.

I would like to see competency beyond the hear thunder, see lightning level.

Marksmanship has little to do with safety. If it was we would all be required to have 5 inch barrels and not carry the pocket rockets. I scored a 100 on my CHL renewall. I assure you I wouldn't do as well with an LC9 or other heavy triggered short barreled high powered hand gun.

zmcgooga wrote: I just think that maybe there should be a prerequisite class of basic firearm safety, that stresses the safety and proper handling of a firearm.

I disagree .. We don't need more red tape. Lots of us know how to shoot, and do so safely before we ever took a formal course. I had was hunting as a 15 year old, shot recreationaly, and served in the army long before I applied for my CHL. Although I have taken a few gun courses and safety courses since receiving my CHL. My point is that the courses can help those who are unfamiliar with guns, there are many of us have achieved proficiency and learned safety with out a formal certifiable course.
I think the problem we are seeing mostly here lies with the instructors. Many are running classes that are way too big. The instructors mentioned here with the "special" students are being extremely negligent in letting these students continue, and fraudulent for letting students pass with only 15 hits on the target. Most instructors have a prerequisite. of a Basic Safety course. but they will bypass this requirement if the potential student has explained their proficiency and and experiance. I think it used to be that most of the older old school instructors became instructors because they believed in the CHL program, and wanted to make it work. It seems to me that a lot of the newer instructors are into it because its a living and not as highly motivated about the program itself.