Civilian Accuracy?

[trigun87]

My sister was preparing for a debate at school because of the nature of the debate which was , Handguns only for military and police and not for civilians; sadly she was on the team that would have all of us be unarmed. To the point one of her teams arguing point was the lack of training and accuracy amongst the general gun owner population. This gave me the motivation to go to the range that same day and reassure my own skills. While at the range I was spying others targets and shot placements. Boy o Boy , she might have a point on a large silhouette target some shooters shots were very erratic , some hit more white than the blue silhouette. I was there for 3 hours and shoot a lot and did a lot of observing. I wanted to believe everyone was better than that, maybe the gun is not theirs maybe its rented.? Wrong they owned their firearms. I have only been shooting for 2 years and some months, and I am fairly accurate 3" group 15 yds on a good day. The only other guy that was not only decent but better than me had 4 or 5 h&k's. I am not saying police are military or any better but it makes me wonder. By the way this was several patrons between 7 and 12 people.

 

[bigfatdave]

she might have a point on a large silhouette target some shooters shots were very erratic , some hit more white than the blue silhouette

Might have been someone out for their first time, or with a new gun ... or it might have been someone like me who was practicing some rapid-fire point-shooting after slow timed fire got boring.

But that skirts the point, which is that arming the civil servants better than the population is a path to tyranny, and that a gun owner is responsible for their own training and proficiency, unlike a cop/soldier who will be required to train by their authority structure.
Oh, and police are civilians, don't make the mistake wannabe-SWAT boys do and assume the load-bearing vest and tactical van make them part of the military.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Yeah, Mall ninjas aren't the whole shooting population, they can represent falsly to the uninformed people about the way we are though.

 

[zombienerd]

This is a double edged sword, and the question is a little "loaded", pardon my pun.

I think most people could use a little formal training. They should seek it out on their own.

I do not think that any governing body has the right to FORCE anyone to seek training.

I answered no because of this. Sure, I think most people SHOULD seek regular training. But I don't think they should HAVE TO to be able to own a weapon.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I agree with ZN, government mandated training is excessive but most people can use training. I taught myself how to shoot handguns with a CO2 BB airpistol but most people can't fiqure it out on their own.

 

[sonier]

i agree with zombie, some just suck with certain pistols. for example ill talk about me lol.
i cant hit a human sized target effiecently at 20 yards with a cz-52 if i had that gun for self defense i think i would end up shooting everything but the bad guy, heres the other end of the spectrum for me, I ride horses every day break my own, and off course i carry my colt, and i can run all day along fence lines at 15 yards and shoot soup cans of fence post on horse back full out running. I also can shoot 1 MOA all day at 200 yards with my savage long as wind dosnt pick up.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

Too bad we can't have marksmanship taught in school...

 

[Old Shooter]

So if I'm not as accurate as the Storm Troopers I should turn in my guns?

What if they are not as accurate as I am, Do I get my pick of their arms?

 

[jnyork]

Too bad we can't have marksmanship taught in school...

Some on this board may be too young to remember when most high schools of any size DID have marksmanship training via the school rifle team or the Junior ROTC or both. I myself was the rifle coach of Mira Loma high school in Sacramento CA during the mid 70's. Some of the schools in town had their own indoor range, some shot in the Parks and Recreation range in the south part of town. Sadly, most of these activities have gone the way of the dodo, thanks to political correctness and liberalism in the field of education.

 

[JohnBT]

I'm confused by the wording of the poll. Could you clarify the choices? Memberes of local and state police are subject to civil law and are civilians; military police are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and are not civilians.

John

 

[trigun87]

I'm confused by the wording of the poll. Could you clarify the choices? Memberes of local and state police are subject to civil law and are civilians; military police are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and are not civilians./QUOTE] In this poll a civilians is a not an off duty leo/ military, just your average non -operator occupation civilian.

Also I'm not saying strip the inaccurate of the right to carry.

 

[Gungnir]

While at the range I was spying others targets and shot placements. Boy o Boy , she might have a point on a large silhouette target some shooters shots were very erratic , some hit more white than the blue silhouette.

There's an assumption being made here, that you need to consider.

You have no comparison data for police accuracy. How do you know it's any better, it could just as easily be considerably worse.

The use of handguns in the military is not especially common, most average troops are not even issued a sidearm (until relatively recently officers and senior NCO's only) they're issued with a rifle. So comparative data may not be available or does not reflect the average skill of the military with handguns. I'm sure if you pulled the targets of a SEAL team the accuracy would be considerably better than an average civilian, pulling the targets of an average 11B may be considerably worse if its only based on people with no prior experience of firearms to the military and with only provided military training.

Now in isolation you may consider that the accuracy of the 7-12 people at that range at that time is poor, but compared to what? What were they working on while firing, it may not have been pure unadulterated aiming at the bullseye, but working on other aspects (sight picture, flinch elimination, draw from holster, trigger control, off hand, stance, ammo selection or load development, rapid fire, Mozambique drill the list is endless). It's equally likely they were just putting holes in the paper burning ammo and not really trying. You also don't know what their firearm experience was (or claimed to be) were they new shooters, or allegedly experienced.

Just my $0.02.

 

[CraigC]

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

 

[Kali]

no, R2KBA is not skill dependent.

 

[smince]

While I think civilians should get more training, I'm unaware of a rash of untrained 'civilians' wreaking havoc with their CCW weapons. I would consider it a meaningless exercise.

 

[The Bushmaster]

No...If you are saying that they MUST [by law] get training. That is NOT in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the 2nd Amendment. Should they? Yes, but it is not required and shouldn't be.

I voted NO...

 

[BeerSleeper]

You have a right to free speech. Even if you are not capable, you have that right. Even if you have nothing intelligent to say, you have that right.


You have a right to keep and bear arms... (follow the pattern)

 

[DERGLOCKINMEISTER]

Too follow this logic , I should not attempt to dance , sing , whistle or perform judo , cuz I'm not very good at those things either . The whole purpose of being at a practice range is to..... well ,practice . It is my right to do these things and a lot of other things by virtue of my presence here . I promise that I won,t sing where it would be painful to others and I won't discharge my firearms irresponsibly either . My rights don't give me the green light to inflict harm on you , so I will become as proficient as I can be at all the things I do .

 

[22-rimfire]

I feel I have a right to be a poor shot if that is what I want. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about training or accuracy. We should all practice. Be all you can be!

 

[Clipper]

Heck, the lousiest shots at the range are usually cops. I know few non-leo shooters who can't outshoot the average LEO, and for one main reason...LEOs shoot because they have to. Non-LEOs shoot because they want to. Motivation makes a world of difference. As a handgun hunter, my stock-in-trade is accuracy. I mostly made it my own goal and didn't need some 'oracle' to get that way.

 

[mljdeckard]

Of course they should. So should everyone else. You know which shooters are done training? The dead ones. If Massad Ayoob takes a week off of every year to train, everyone else needs to train too. You know when Soldiers stop training? Never. You know which solders train the most? The best ones. (Elite teams are pretty much always either training or working.) There is no such thing as good enough.

BUT, where does this mean we must draw the line for civilians? Should we make my 81 year-old grandmother spend a week at Thunder Ranch before she is allowed to carry? It's to easy to get into the mentality that "anyone worse then ME shouldn't carry." Or drive. Or vote. If a person is legally qualified, and can handle a gun safely, they should be able to carry.

I can't outshoot ALL cops, but I have embarrassed MANY cops, particularly younger ones, at the range. Being a cop or soldier in no way means that a person is near the level they should train to be.

 

[pbearperry]

Accuracy is important,but firearm safety is even more important.

 

[ilikepancakes]

Nope. I don't even think you should have to take a safety class to CC. It's a good idea to make that choice, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

 

[Tommygunn]

I won't say that people shouldn't get more training in accuracy, but OTOH I seem to recall an FBI study from a number of years ago that indicated that when police actually fire their guns in a real incident, they hit the wrong person, or miss, in @ 11% of cases, where when a civilian is involved in a self defense shooting, he misses or shoots the wrong person in 2% of the cases.
If used in a "who should own handguns; authorities only or civies," debate, it might seem useful as an argument to remove guns from the police.
But I think it really means that police work involves a far greater opportunity to be involved in these types of incidents ... but might not necessarily be better with a gun (ie., they're human).

 

[ranger335v]

" Boy o Boy , she might have a point on a large silhouette target some shooters shots were very erratic , some hit more white than the blue silhouette. "

Two points:

You should get a look at the targets a lot of modern (PC and girly type) GI's and cops routinely produce, that would really put tears in your eyes. I've seen a bunch of them I'd rather have shooting at me than beside me!

Most of the people you will see at most indoor ranges are NOT trained or even consistant shooters. Many of them are there just for fun and to see if they can do what they see done on TV programs of competition shooting. They usually can't.