Guns...

[JAB1985]

In just about all states that have a CHL program it's a two part test. The written test is about laws governing CHL carriers (i.e. when / where you can carry, type of weapon, etc) and the liability surrounding carrying. The second part is qualification with the weapon. It varies for each state, but the lowest minimum standard I've seen is in LA, which is 70%. And target shooting IS scenario based. Shooting at a silhouette target is ideal for taking up a proper target picture and aiming center mas. Those are thew two most critical skills in shooting.

target shooting is not scenario based. unless that target is surrounded by civilians in some scenarios and you have to move or simply cannot take a shot its not a scenario. its dead straight, controlled environment that says you can shoot a non-moving target from a set distance. nothing else. thats not what im talking about as far as actual training that would allow one to say they were trained for that scenario. based on the last part of my previous post that i added, theres not even a 70% in some cases just simply firing a shot (granted its from wiki).

You wouldn't ask a golfer to practice putting anywhere else put a putting green so I don't see why you have to ask someone to train "scenario based" when no two scenarios are never the same. When it comes time to shoot, you want to revert back to the fundamentals, not a laundry list of of other "stuff". That's precisely whey the military / law enforcement trains on targets. Now anyone can take advanced classes (handgun, AR-15, etc), all through the NRA, that's more scenario based but again, unless you master the fundamentals, it's meaningless to you.

first, i think this is a bad example. a golfer will only put on a putting green, so he should only be asked to put on one. a shooter will never find himself shooting at somebody at the other end of a gun range. so a scenario based, even general scenario where civilian bystanders are indeed included is the more likely scenario.

second, i agree basics should be handled first but i dont think its adequate to say that becasue they can handle the basics they are now qualified to handle such a scenario that involves other civilians. to the greater point that even if they do injure a bystander they shouldnt be trialed for it as if it was their duty.

No. I am saying civilian training / requirements to act are different than that of a cop, thus the outcome if affected by it. A cop has to engage an active shooter. A civilian does not. A cop in an active shooter scenario has a duty to stop the threat. A CHL Carrier does not. Since a cop has a duty to protect himself AND those around him, he / she is going to be more inclined to take a shot / shots. Me, as a CHL holder, is not going to go on the offensive unless I absolutely have to and / or if I feel comfortable doing so. You keep using Aurora as the standard, yet cops and CHL holders are FAR more likely to use their weapons is a vast amount of other, more realistic scenarios. Aurora is the extreme outlier here.

that may be the written part of the test that you and other responsible owners and CHL follow properly. In my experience, I remember my simple hunters safety course, that i didnt intend to ever use, was pretty simple common sense stuff. however, there was a guy beside and behind me that barely passed after acknowledging this was a 2nd time and they studied really hard. Whats the chances that they retain that information and follow through with it so devoutly as you and other responsible owners do? I obviously wont say none of them are responsible, nor do i remotely believe that, but i dont think you can claim that everyone that takes these courses are either.

And it's been my experience civilians are generally far better shots than your average beat cop. Most cops only have to qualify once a year with their weapon and many times, that's the only time they fire said weapon. SWAT and QRT teams are different, but that's a small percentage of police on the streets.

well personal experiences are hard to argue against. Ive seen both. I have a cop friend (qualifies 2x a year) that was on a marine Fast team whos a damn good shot, i have a friend thats a beat cop (qualifies 4x a year) thats a pretty decent shot and three civilians, two of which are pretty bad shots. One is worse than me and shoots damn near weekly vs my once a year at best. Both civilians have CHL, so whatever they had to pass, they did but it doesnt give me warm and fuzzies about how difficult a test that is to say "theyre trained". once a year qualification is better than once a lifetime imo. Most of the cops that i know that do only qualify once in a while are avid shooters and practice as much or more than the civilians i know. so im not sure that beat cops are bad shots holds true across the board.

For one, you're assuming I am going to take the offensive which I would not unless I had to.

But lets suppose I did decide I needed to stand up and take a shot. It goes back to training. I am trained as a CHL holder to survey the area BEHIND the shooter. It's called haveing a clear background. If there's a chance I can hit someone, I don't take the shot. Now, some reports have said his AR-15 jammed. I have an advantage than most CHL holders in that I know exactly what an AR-15 sounds like when it jams, is out of ammo, etc. thanks to my military time and the fact I own an AR-15. Once I heard that sound and I had a clear background, I am putting 15 rounds of 9mm right at his chest without hesitation. But again, Aurora is the extreme fringe example. The more likely scenario is I am at a gas station and grabbing something to drink when some nut comes in to hold up the place. Or, I am walking down the street and someone tries to mug me.

first im not trying to assume but i just dont understand how you defensively use a weapon. its an aggressive tool. A shield is defensive. once you commit to pulling a trigger youre now on the offensive in my mind, even if it is indeed to protect/defend yourself.

second i think again your using yourself as the CHL holder, which is fine, but not everyone that has CHL, is a military trained responsible gun owner. Youre saying when you stand up because his gun locked, theres nobody else around, but again, its dark, smokey, shadow figure, how do you know its not somebody trying to get away? chances are hes not just standing there like a target, right? I also dont disagree that these public massacres are not likely scenarios. which is why i dont think civilians are properly prepared to handle such. They should be trained for gas stations and or a street scenario at night. all places where other civilians could be around. It may be hard for you to step outside because in your shoes, you already are trained for such a thing as ex military. a more general CHL im not sure makes the same judgements as yourself. theyd like to think they would but its not always going to happen that way.

Point is, there's never going to be the perfect example as to when you pull the gun and pull the trigger but you seem to want to strive for one.

again, im just saying they should be held accountable when they do vs your argument that seems to be it would never happen or is, at the very least, less likely to happen than if they were police even because of a written test and shooting at a target one day. this debate started because KOJO suggested insurance for shooters that injure bystanders while stopping a crime. I said im not ok with it because they arent trained like cops and have that responsibility. Im not really seeing where we disagree on this or are you saying civilians that take these courses are trained enough to be equal to police?