OK, I’ll concede.

Just because you have a license to carry a concealed handgun doesn’t mean you truly know how to use it. Oh sure, you are probably good enough on the range, in an unpressured environment, taking your time, shooting a stationary cardboard/paper target. Take a look at the shooting/skills requirements for the Texas CHL. Certainly if you can’t do that you have no business carrying. I agree with the sentiment on that page that while 70% is passing, if you can’t pass with 90% on the first cold try you should seriously consider additional training. IMHO, to obtain a CHL is not an end, it’s a beginning. Consider it your pass to take additional training. Many top training schools will only accept students with a CHL for their non-entry-level classes. The CHL demonstrates good character, demonstrates some measure of understanding handgun skills. Obtaining your CHL should (must?) be viewed not as your final destination, merely the key necessary for opening the door to better training and improved skills.

I seek to encourage people to obtain as much education and training as possible because I believe it’s important. When the shit hits the fan, will you be able to perform at the level the situation requires? My primary instructor, Karl Rehn, said it best:

Shooters, more than any other group, suffer from delusions of competence.

I know I’ve suffered from it, and probably to some extent I still do. It keeps me practicing, it keeps me taking classes, and seeking out ways to improve myself.

Why is this so important? One argument by people against concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is that the citizen might screw up, for instance, shoot an innocent bystander. The purpose of training is to minimize undesirable and maximize desirable performance. Why would you want to perform at any level less than desirable?

Nevertheless, the arguments are put forth. What prompted me to write this article was a posting made to a mailing list by J.K.:

But I don’t see how those are realistic and logical arguments. Whoever the active shooter is, like Cho at Virginia Tech, it’s going to be VERY clear to any observer who is the bad guy. He’s the one walking around shooting guns at people who are running and cowering in fear for their lives. Anyone putting fire downrange at Cho at VT would have helped the situation far more than hurt it, even if they winged or killed someone innocent downrange. How many people did Cho kill? 33? What would the total body count have been if someone had shot back in the 2nd classroom he attacked? Even assuming he wasn’t injured in that imaginary exchange, would he likely have continued calmly walking from room to room, executing students, after getting shot at? I doubt it.

So yes, innocent people MIGHT get hurt with a good samaritan gunfighter. But innocent people actually WERE getting hurt by the murderer. And without the good samaritan, MORE innocent people would be hurt, not fewer. What most people who argue against this fail to realize or recognize is that violent criminals aren’t generally looking for gunfights. They’re looking for victims. As soon as it turns into an actual fight where they’re taking fire, it dramatically alters their plans.

Look at the stats, and you’ll see that far more good than harm is done by regular citizens who attempt self-defense with a gun. The tragic stray bullet killing an innocent kid scenario pretty much never happens.

These are the facts, based upon all the active shooter situations we’ve had over the past some decades.

Nevertheless, I think with the dramatic rise in people obtaining their concealed handgun licenses, the more training we each receive the better. Not so much to ensure a minimization of collateral damage, but more to ensure a maximization of desired outcomes. If you really want to stop innocents from getting injured, we need more sheepdogs.