'Cause he had a gun?
To pick a nit, LEO means Law Enforcement Officer. The creators of this class seem to think that means he’s qualified to function as a safety instructor, but they are obviously wrong.
That’s what it was like in rural Saskatchewan, too. The boys all went hunting with their fathers each fall, and had to take a Firearms Safety course before doing so. (Yes, Canadians have guns - and lots of 'em. We just have a different attitude towards them.)
Your experience really does sound shocking, Crafter_Man. I can’t believe there is anybody in North America who doesn’t know that all guns should be handled as loaded at all times at this point.
This one of course being the exception. 
I umpeenth the suggestion to write a letter, and maybe even make a few phone calls. I haven’t been to a firearms safety class where the students brought their own guns either though.
umpteenth even!
Christ. I might have walked out of that class and demanded my money back. Sorry to hear your class was so shitty, Crafter_Man; mine (also in Ohio) was overwhelmingly positive.
When I took the CCW class in May of 2004 (very shortly after Ohio’s CCW law was enacted), the instructors were absolutely admanant that no ammunition at all was permitted in the classroom. In addition, persons bringing their handguns, had to keep them inside a locked case while in the classroom. There really wasn’t any reason to permit people to bring handguns into the classroom at all that I can see. (The class I took was spread over three days, the first two were entirely classroom lectures and the third day was entirely devoted to range time. So, if your twelve hours was on a single day, I can at least understand why guns were permitted.) The instructors, whenever possible used a demonstration handgun molded from a single piece of blue rubber. Throughout the course, I can count on ten fingers the number number of times a real firearm was needed to demonstrate something.
Anyone else having flashbacks to The Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun?
See, these are the kinds of people the anti-gun lobby has in mind. This instructor is just giving them more ammo (no pun intended).
Cry me a river. Judging by the OP’s description, does anyone think it’s a good idea to let the bozos in that class walk around with a concealed weapon ? People who can’t even handle their weapons safely in a classroom environment should not be allowed on a firing range, much less try to tackle the responsibility of making split-second decisions regarding the use of deadly force. Please, for the love of Og, provide inconvenient legal hoops - preferably ones that’ll actually weed out the incompetents - before letting these chowderheads out among us.
An armed society is a polite society, doncherknow ?
I’m not sure how often this class is held, but maybe you ought to find out what state (I assume) agency is in charge of this and give the head of the agency a jingle, in addition to sending a letter. If the class is held somewhat often, I say you really should call before the next one.
I’ve attended three firearm safety courses and had people ejected and/or strenuously warned for a fraction of the behavior described in the OP.
Re acronyms: I’m still trying to figure out this one:
[something] discharges?
Re “Treat every gun as if it is loaded”: Reminds me of the parallel saying, “A falling knife has no handle.”
Good point, Dorjän. And I’m kicking myself in the ass right now. Seriously, as a responsible gun owner and defender of What’s Right™, why did I put up with this?!?! I now feel thoroughly embarrassed for not speaking up. 
The idea of making it inconvenient is simply to discourage as many people as possible from getting the permit. This has nothing to do with promoting safety, either. It is about encumbering the process strictly for the sake of encumbering the process. Similar things are done in other states where there is no class requirement.
I was thinking of the one where the vigilante group got together:
BLAM
“Sorry.”
BLAM
“Sorry.”
BLAM
“Sorry.”
BLAM
“Sorry.”
BLAM
“Sorry.”
CrafterMan, so am I right in assuming this was not a beginner’s class? All of these people should have known better? Terrifying.
Scumpup, how do you feel philosophically about hunter safety classes before one can get a hunter’s license?
Hunter safety courses as requirement towards getting a license are fine with me. The 2nd Ammendment isn’t about hunting, which is something the states are free to regulate as they see fit. IOW, there is no “right to hunt” as such.
You know, you make an interesting point.
Call me naïve, but it never occurred to me that there are some real idiots & inexperienced people out there who are flat out dangerous w/ guns. Up until now, I and all my shooting buddies have always been anally-retentive when it came to firearms safety, and I always assumed that that’s how all gun owners were. Now I know better.
In the class we attended, most of the students appeared to be very inexperienced (or complete idiots) when it came to guns. I should also mention that there was a “special deal” going on for this session only: women got trained for free! So as you might guess, there were a lot of women in the class (about 60). And based on what I saw, I suspect most of them were just borrowing their husband’s or BF’s gun. It would be an understatement to say that they appeared to be extremely inexperienced when it came to firearms. With the exception of my wife, all of them were haphazardly waving their muzzles around, racking the slides, and had their fingers on the triggers. And their brain-dead husbands/BFs who were sitting next to them didn’t see to care.
I cringe when I realize these people will be carrying loaded firearms.
I’m torn between Noctural Discharges and Negligent Discharges, but I’m siding with the former.
Regardless of your opinion of the motivation of instituting mandatory training before issuing a CCW permit, surely the OP illustrates the critical necessity of such training (although hopefully taught by someone competent)? It’s pretty hard to argue that safety training is simply a pointless roadblock when you have a class full of people handling guns in an unsafe fashion?
It used to be that, when a firearm “went off” unintentionally, it was called an “accidental discharge” (AD). Today the term “negligent discharge” (ND) is more commonplace.
To me, if you’re properly following all the rules of firearms handling, an accidental discharge that is not the result of a mechanical malfunction is pretty much impossible.
I’d say almost all “accidental” discharges involve some kind of negligence.
lno, you better go back for your doctorate in humoretics.