TexasCHLforum.com

My instructor appeared to err on the side of caution, but exhibhited none of that sort of "prosecution paranoia," if I might coin a phrase.

ezypikns wrote:I just completed my renewal class today, and I think there's lots of folks who get their license and just plain don't shoot again. Many of the targets in todays class looked as if they'd been hit with a shotgun. And not a very tightly patterned shotgun either. The other thing I noticed is that people were really hurrying their shots. You really have plenty of time to aim when taking your proficiency test. Slow down a bit and you'll really score much better.

I understand what you are saying but truly, what difference does it make? Its not a contest and practically impossible to fail. I shoot IDPA and have been shooting since i was 7. My target was "shotgunned" because i didnt care. I abhor shooting in controlled environs like that, "load 5", "Load 10" is annoying. I just wanted it over with. Thats why I like shooting at PSC, the range is essentially private bays with sensible safety regs. I can load 2 and practice reloads or load 30 and just shoot.

smyrna wrote: With that said, the instructor encouraged the good shooters to NOT score a perfect score. He said that if he ever ended up in court, he could honestly say that the person in question was not a perfect shot.

I have a LEO friend who subscribes to the same theory and exercises it during his annual / semi-annual qualifications. I am not sure if this is not just a cop out (no pun intended) as even with all of his subsidized ammunition and training he still can't out shoot me.

I am not sure where all of this talk about shooting poorly on the range is coming from, but I will bet that under pressure those who practice spraying shots around will do the same to a target that is shooting back. Muscle memory is one of the primary functions that you want to be training while practicing, and it can make the difference in a gun fight. It is not just point and shoot that counts either, you need to practice clearing the holster and obtaining the site picture. Each time I go to the range my goal is to be as accurate as possible, having a record of not being a very good shot is not going to be a defense in the case of a bad shoot. That would just tell the DA that not only did you not know the law very well, you did not spend enough time at the range.

45 4 life wrote:I am not sure where all of this talk about shooting poorly on the range is coming from, but I will bet that under pressure those who practice spraying shots around will do the same to a target that is shooting back.

From my experience running a police range for a 200 officer agency, you're absolutely right. In fact, it doesn't even take somebody shooting back - just introduce a little stress with time limits or side by side man on man competition, and the same thing happens until folks learn to focus on the fundamentals and tactics and tune out everything that doesn't help them perform reliably under stress. It gets a lot worse when someone knows that the target(s) is (are) trying to kill him.

BigBlueDodge wrote:

But, seriously, I can not understand anyone carrying a firearm and not practice with it. That's a little scary, you know?

Actually, I think you will find that MOST people buy stuff and don't take the time to learn how to fully use it. Let me ask this

1. How many hear know how to use every feature on his/her cell phone. My father in law has been using Cell Phones for years, and he still doesn't even know how to enter in a contact or check his text message (or even know what a text message is).
2. How many licensed drivers, feel like they could stop right now, walk right into a DPS and pass the written part of a drivers license test.
3. How many here, now how to fully use all of the features of their TV/VCR/DVD players ?

The problem is that guns are amazingly simple to use. Most people know that you chamber a round, point the gun, pull the trigger and it goes bang. Given that most occurances I've read about happn in 3-7 yards, there isn't alot of accuracy needed. What i'm more worried about are the people who get their CHL, and never read the pamphlet containing laws after their class. Those are the people that scare me.

I think that we're talking apples and oranges here. The big difference is that not knowing how to use every feature on a cell phone/vcr/etc... does not have the potential ramifications that not being proficient with your carry weapon. There is a HUGE difference between missing a text message and missing a guy charging at you with a knife. Consider the fact that my 15 year old daughter might be standing behind the guy charging with the knife and wind up taking your errant bullet... and I think it is obvious that the comparison doesn't hold water.

I think that carrying a weapon in public for self defense is a right that all law abiding citizens should have. I also believe that if we choose to exercise that right, then we take on a tremendous responsibility. You can scoff all you want at how much accuracy is required at 3-7 yards... but when you and the target are both moving, your hands are shaking from adrenaline, you are point shooting, you have extreme tunnel vision, and you may be injured... well, the fact that you can shoot a dime sized group at 7 yards while standing at the range doesn't mean beans. Look up some statistics about how many rounds in those close range gunfights actually hit their targets.

I don't care if you can program your VCR. I don't care if you know the penalty for failure to display your CHL when asked by an officer. I do care that when you are carrying in public, you are competant to handle your weapon safely, use good judgement about when you have a clear shot, and put your rounds very close to the point of aim.

You have the right to defend yourself. You also have the responsibility not to endanger innocents. BOTH of these require you to be proficient with the handling and use of your firearm.

Sangiovese wrote:

BigBlueDodge wrote:

But, seriously, I can not understand anyone carrying a firearm and not practice with it. That's a little scary, you know?

Actually, I think you will find that MOST people buy stuff and don't take the time to learn how to fully use it. Let me ask this

1. How many hear know how to use every feature on his/her cell phone. My father in law has been using Cell Phones for years, and he still doesn't even know how to enter in a contact or check his text message (or even know what a text message is).
2. How many licensed drivers, feel like they could stop right now, walk right into a DPS and pass the written part of a drivers license test.
3. How many here, now how to fully use all of the features of their TV/VCR/DVD players ?

The problem is that guns are amazingly simple to use. Most people know that you chamber a round, point the gun, pull the trigger and it goes bang. Given that most occurances I've read about happn in 3-7 yards, there isn't alot of accuracy needed. What i'm more worried about are the people who get their CHL, and never read the pamphlet containing laws after their class. Those are the people that scare me.

I think that we're talking apples and oranges here. The big difference is that not knowing how to use every feature on a cell phone/vcr/etc... does not have the potential ramifications that not being proficient with your carry weapon. There is a HUGE difference between missing a text message and missing a guy charging at you with a knife. Consider the fact that my 15 year old daughter might be standing behind the guy charging with the knife and wind up taking your errant bullet... and I think it is obvious that the comparison doesn't hold water.

I think that carrying a weapon in public for self defense is a right that all law abiding citizens should have. I also believe that if we choose to exercise that right, then we take on a tremendous responsibility. You can scoff all you want at how much accuracy is required at 3-7 yards... but when you and the target are both moving, your hands are shaking from adrenaline, you are point shooting, you have extreme tunnel vision, and you may be injured... well, the fact that you can shoot a dime sized group at 7 yards while standing at the range doesn't mean beans. Look up some statistics about how many rounds in those close range gunfights actually hit their targets.

I don't care if you can program your VCR. I don't care if you know the penalty for failure to display your CHL when asked by an officer. I do care that when you are carrying in public, you are competant to handle your weapon safely, use good judgement about when you have a clear shot, and put your rounds very close to the point of aim.

You have the right to defend yourself. You also have the responsibility not to endanger innocents. BOTH of these require you to be proficient with the handling and use of your firearm.

- very strongly.

+1 I think there are a lot of people out there carrying that need a lot more training.

Sangiovese wrote:I think that we're talking apples and oranges here. The big difference is that not knowing how to use every feature on a cell phone/vcr/etc... does not have the potential ramifications that not being proficient with your carry weapon. There is a HUGE difference between missing a text message and missing a guy charging at you with a knife. Consider the fact that my 15 year old daughter might be standing behind the guy charging with the knife and wind up taking your errant bullet... and I think it is obvious that the comparison doesn't hold water.

What if the text message is from your 15 year old daughter who was gagged and thrown in the trunk of a car? That's an unlikely situation but is it less likely than her standing behind some crazy guy with a knife instead of running away?

Sangiovese wrote:You have the right to defend yourself. You also have the responsibility not to endanger innocents. BOTH of these require you to be proficient with the handling and use of your firearm.

I agree. But looking at the news and statistics I don't see many innocents who get shot because of poor marksmanship. I do see lots of innocents who are injured or killed because of poor driving. That's an area where there should be more required training and heavier penalties for unlicensed activity.

boomerang wrote:

Sangiovese wrote:I think that we're talking apples and oranges here. The big difference is that not knowing how to use every feature on a cell phone/vcr/etc... does not have the potential ramifications that not being proficient with your carry weapon. There is a HUGE difference between missing a text message and missing a guy charging at you with a knife. Consider the fact that my 15 year old daughter might be standing behind the guy charging with the knife and wind up taking your errant bullet... and I think it is obvious that the comparison doesn't hold water.

What if the text message is from your 15 year old daughter who was gagged and thrown in the trunk of a car? That's an unlikely situation but is it less likely than her standing behind some crazy guy with a knife instead of running away?

Sangiovese wrote:You have the right to defend yourself. You also have the responsibility not to endanger innocents. BOTH of these require you to be proficient with the handling and use of your firearm.

I agree. But looking at the news and statistics I don't see many innocents who get shot because of poor marksmanship. I do see lots of innocents who are injured or killed because of poor driving. That's an area where there should be more required training and heavier penalties for unlicensed activity.

In the first situation, she would be using her phone for 911 rather than texting dear ol' dad. I'm thinking that a silent/muffled call with e911GPS would get a response. But the far more likely situation is that she is running for cover from our bad guy with the knife, but still within the shooter's "backstop" as she runs. If he is going to take that shot, I want him to (1) understand the risk to her and be able to make a GOOD judgement about his ability to make the shot, and (2) be able to make the shot he thinks he can make.

As for the car factor... knowing all the things they ask you on a driver's license test doesn't really do much at all for your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. I'm pretty familiar with what's on the test as my daughter just got her permit last week :) She scored a 100 on her permit test - and she is nowhere near ready to drive in traffic in adverse weather. It's a flawed argument. Of course more people are injured by cars... there are more of them in use every day. If you look at the number of injuries/fatalities per turn of the ignition switch compared to those same numbers per pull of the trigger in public, you would see a much different story.

Here are some statistics presented by NYPD to justify switching to hollowpoints in an effort to minimize bystander shootings due to shoot-throughs and ricochets...

According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full-metal-jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects.

In that same period, officers in the Transit Bureau, who already used the hollow points, struck six bystanders. Four of them were hit directly, one was hit by a bullet that ricocheted and another was hit by a bullet that passed through an object.

In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by police gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed though other people. Of the four officers struck by hollow-point bullets, three were hit directly and one was hit by a bullet that passed through another person.

Source: New York Times ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all )

That's 65 innocent people hit with gunfire by police in New York City in a two year period. Although a lot of us "gun nuts" practice more than a lot of LEOs, I think that we can all agree that the vast majority of cops are proficient enough with their weapons that it is an acceptable risk when they decide to fire in public.

If cops are hitting innocents at this rate, how do you think the average CHL holder who only shoots enough to qualify for their initial license and renewal every so often are going to do?

You can bring cars and such into it if you want... but driver competence is a separate issue. There are a lot of things more likely to kill us than another CHL with poor skills - but that's not what we're discussing here.

If you choose to exercise your right to carry a weapon for self defense, then you owe it to everyone within range of your weapon to be skilled in its use.

Sangiovese wrote:You can bring cars and such into it if you want... but driver competence is a separate issue. There are a lot of things more likely to kill us than another CHL with poor skills - but that's not what we're discussing here.

So back on topic, if someone is a poor shot then they should take their time on their CHL Proficiency Test to make sure they pass. But for most gun people I know it's easy to score at least 90% on the shooting test. That's a lot better than passing so there's no real benefit to slowing down.

Well, I think the original post had as much to do with surprise at the poor marksmanship displayed as with the observation that it appeared that it might be caused by rushing.

At least that was my take on it. If I was wrong, then I really hijacked this thing!

At any rate, I certainly agree that most people can pass the CHL test without really trying. My personal feelings are that the test is far too easy (I feel the same way about driver's license testing btw!) but I'm sure that is a subject for a different post.

Anyway... thanks for a civil discussion. I'm sure that I have already said way too much about my thoughts on it.

But, if it was too hard then it would be an infringement to RKBA. Cant have it both ways, If you feel the RKBA is absolute then you have to take the good with the bad. We argue constantly on here and other boards that licensing, registration, waiting periods, etc, are all bad and that they infringe but then want to say someone has to be a competent shooter? Just like everyone who can pass a simple test to drive but not be a competent driver must be issued a license we should feel the same about a firearm. More are killed/injured by bad drivers than bad shots, even adjusted for differences in per capita I would imagine.
In a perfect world I would agree that competency should be a requirement but then you get the "slippery slope" argument going. I am truly not wanting a lot of people i meet to be carrying but I also believe that is their right as well and they may feel the same about me.

rm9792 wrote: In a perfect world I would agree that competency should be a requirement but then you get the "slippery slope" argument going. I am truly not wanting a lot of incompetent (competent, the more the merrier) people I meet to be carrying but I also believe that is their right as well and they may feel the same about me.

Added my take

-Cain

rm9792 wrote:But, if it was too hard then it would be an infringement to RKBA. Cant have it both ways, If you feel the RKBA is absolute then you have to take the good with the bad. We argue constantly on here and other boards that licensing, registration, waiting periods, etc, are all bad and that they infringe but then want to say someone has to be a competent shooter? Just like everyone who can pass a simple test to drive but not be a competent driver must be issued a license we should feel the same about a firearm. More are killed/injured by bad drivers than bad shots, even adjusted for differences in per capita I would imagine.
In a perfect world I would agree that competency should be a requirement but then you get the "slippery slope" argument going. I am truly not wanting a lot of people i meet to be carrying but I also believe that is their right as well and they may feel the same about me.

I believe that the right to keep arms in your home is absolute. I believe that the right to carry them in public should be based on demonstrating an appropriate level of competence.

Statistics vary depending on which study you read, but they seem to hover around a 50% hit rate in close quarters engagements. That's fine from one perspective. I carry a .45 with 10 in the magazine and one in the chamber. If I am attacked and get a 50% hit rate, I will put 5 or 6 shots on target. I like my odds of neutralizing a threat when I hit them with 5 or 6 .45 cal JHPs. So from a personal defense standpoint... a 50% hit rate is probably ok. The problem is that if I am in a public, crowded place... what is going to happen to the 5 or 6 misses? If even one of them hits an innocent bystander then my right to self defense just stomped all over their right to be free from harm. What gives me the right to injure or kill another innocent person while defending myself?

I think about it all the time. It was the biggest question that I had to resolve when I was trying to decide if I wanted to get my license and start carrying. The way that I resolved the conflict was to make a promise to myself that I would do everything in my power to improve my skills and knowledge. I read a lot about real-world encounter tactics. I practice regularly (somewhere around 8K rounds per year). I shoot IDPA for practice doing things I cannot do at the range but will have to do in a real engagement.

I don't think that the right to carry should be based on the whims of politicians or law enforcement officials. I don't think it should be based on social or economic status. But I DO think that it should be based on being able to demonstrate an acceptable level of skill in the employment of your weapon. Do I think you need to be Jeff Cooper or Dave Sevigny in order to be able to carry? Of course not. Do I expect people to shoot thousands of rounds per year in order to be able to carry? Absolutely not. Do I expect them to be able to perform to a much higher standard than they are currently held? Yes I do.

I'm sure it's not a popular opinion. But I don't want John Doe's right to self defense to cost me a son or a daughter because the first time John ever tried to draw and shoot was in the neighborhood 7-11.