TexasCHLforum.com

I was surprised at how poorly some shot around me..I am used to military range quals and processes. When I first moved onto the indoor range and they moved the target out to the first line I thought maybe the pulley was busted in my stall. I thought "wow who needs a gun at this distance give me a pencil and I can reach out and poke the holes". Then I got to thinking that it all makes sense. If a guy is at 25 how would you really know he was a threat to your well being or to your life.....came to realize I had been trained to kill not to defend in the military and had to change both my shooting tactics and mindset.

Drifter wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

jbirds1210 wrote:Do CHL instructors even score a target like this with a numbered score? It is clear that he passed and I thought that a score was not recorded. Just wondering....nice shooting.

It depends. If the student wants his score, sure. My records and the form to the state shows Pass/Fail only.

My CHL class instructor had an interesting take on this issue. He gave us a Pass or Fail, but no scores and no take home targets. Said something like "You don't want any records of how well you shoot floating around if you are ever involved in an actual shooting." Seemed to make sense at the time, and more so the longer I thought about it..

Thats just one of those silly rumors. There is no reason NOT to have records of how well I shoot. None, NADA, zip!

I have heard the exact same thing from my class "we dont keep grades...you dont want a lawyer knowing you scored perfect on the range"

That makes no sense at all.

The fact that you practice and shoot accurately is a factor in your defense.

- Jim

sting3r wrote:I have heard the exact same thing from my class "we dont keep grades...you dont want a lawyer knowing you scored perfect on the range"

I always ask those who say that one thing, "why"?

txinvestigator wrote:

sting3r wrote:I have heard the exact same thing from my class "we dont keep grades...you dont want a lawyer knowing you scored perfect on the range"

I always ask those who say that one thing, "why"?

Because the lawyer for the deceased's family will make it look like you could have "shot him in the leg!" instead of a tight group of three in the brisket.

KBCraig wrote:Because the lawyer for the deceased's family will make it look like you could have "shot him in the leg!" instead of a tight group of three in the brisket.

You're either justified in using deadly force or you're not. Shooting is deadly force no matter what part of the body you are aiming at.

- Jim

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

sting3r wrote:I have heard the exact same thing from my class "we dont keep grades...you dont want a lawyer knowing you scored perfect on the range"

I always ask those who say that one thing, "why"?

Because the lawyer for the deceased's family will make it look like you could have "shot him in the leg!" instead of a tight group of three in the brisket.

I have heard that argument too, and it makes no sense. Part of a defensive shooting defense is TRAINING. Training shows that under stress we shoot larger groups than under static training conditions. Due to my concern for my fellow man, I would never aim for a small, moving target like a leg and endanger innocent citizens.

And the deceased actions were so potentially lethal that his unlawful use of deadly force against me needed to be immediately stopped. Studies of MANY shootings show that even center mass hits are not always going to stop a person right away, and often attackers who are shot in non-incapacitating ways often continue their deadly assault.

I did not want to use deadly force, and I certainly did not want the man to die; however, he left me NO choice. It was my belief that under the circumstances then existing, any shot less than center mass would have left me dead.

seamusTX wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Because the lawyer for the deceased's family will make it look like you could have "shot him in the leg!" instead of a tight group of three in the brisket.

You're either justified in using deadly force or you're not. Shooting is deadly force no matter what part of the body you are aiming at.

I agree, but that's criminal liability.

We're talking about what a trial lawyer can bring up in front of a civil jury.

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Because the lawyer for the deceased's family will make it look like you could have "shot him in the leg!" instead of a tight group of three in the brisket.

I have heard that argument too, and it makes no sense.

It's not my argument, so I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just telling you the reason I've heard instructors give.

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Because the lawyer for the deceased's family will make it look like you could have "shot him in the leg!" instead of a tight group of three in the brisket.

I have heard that argument too, and it makes no sense.

It's not my argument, so I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just telling you the reason I've heard instructors give.

I thought so. I like to ask them then if I am a BAD shot, and barely pass, then I should be OK, right?

KBCraig wrote:We're talking about what a trial lawyer can bring up in front of a civil jury.

True, but that has always been rare in Texas and will be shut down after Sept. 1.

Do you think a lawyer would try to make the case that a nationally recognized champion shooter should have shot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

KBCraig wrote:We're talking about what a trial lawyer can bring up in front of a civil jury.

True, but that has always been rare in Texas and will be shut down after Sept. 1.

Do you think a lawyer would try to make the case that a nationally recognized champion shooter should have shot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand?

- Jim

You will still have civil liability after Sept 1. The new law is only a defense, not a prohibition of suits.

im not disagreeing at all. I think its dumb not to give out scores. Some of the people in my class needed them! Maybe it would push them to the range more often to improve. If in a situation I would rather nobody had a gun than some of the people I quald with.