http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/s ... ation-test" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Although the FBI course has some 25 yard shots, it doesn't require you get every shot on target either. I think the last time I read the FBI stats, 90% of handgun defensive shootings were 7 yards or less, and less than 5% (somewhere around there) were at 25 yards or greater.
This link makes an assumption that proof of technical ability with a firearm is somehow going to help in a charge dealing with why the gun was used or intent. I question this line of reasoning. Some of the biggest criminals in history were good shots, so what?
Is Ohio's LE qualification really that bad? I know I could never have done it blindfolded, at least at the 50 feet distance, but then I never wanted to miss the target completely either, even if I could get possibly get a passing score. Although I'm not opposed to anyone actually doing any of the above if they desire, just how important is it really for every CHL holder to do this with every gun they might carry? Obviously if it was a situation where someone shot an innocent person accidentally it might be an issue. Is anyone aware however of any actual court cases where a persons alleged qualifications or marksmanship was an issue in a deliberate intentional shooting situation?If you have to shoot someone in self defense and your abilities are questioned by the court, it makes a pretty powerful statement to say:
“As a responsible gun owner, I didn’t feel comfortable carrying my gun in public until my skill level was at least as good as the police officers who patrol my community. I took several training classes and I successfully completed the state’s police pistol qualification course. Here’s the target to prove it.”
That might shut down any line of questioning that disparages your skill set or paints you as someone who is “reckless” or “wants to shoot someone.”