One of the reasons for the FBI's move to 9mm ammo just might surprise you

Having been a gun rights writer for over 13 years, I'm usually able to gauge whatever the current meme floating around social media is by the number of times it is forwarded to me by readers who think I might be interested in covering it. I appreciate their taking the time to do so, and in some cases I do find that the topics are worth sharing with BuckeyeFirearms.org readers.

One such news item that got a great deal of attention over the summer actually dated back to an announcement made by the FBI way back in May 2014 - that the powers-that-be at Quantico had decided that their agents would be returning to firearms chambered in 9mm.

I've never been one to engage in the Great Caliber Debate, but it is clearly one of the most favorite topics of discussion among gun owners. Indeed, with well over a half a million reads, one of the most-read articles on our website continues to be one written by Greg Ellifritz, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power." (Incidentally, Mr. Ellifritz's conclusion is that while "caliber really isn't all that important," shot placement is.)

So given this level of interest in the subject, one can understand why the FBI's decision made waves that continued to reverberate for months after the announcement was first made. But it was one of the reasons the FBI gave for their decision that I thought deserved a whole lot more attention than it was given.

Included among the list of reasons given in the FBI's "Executive Summary of Justification for Law Enforcement Partners" was this:

LEO’s miss between 70 – 80 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident.

That statistic played into their decision because, as noted later in the report, "The majority of FBI shooters are both FASTER in shot strings fired and more ACCURATE with shooting a 9mm Luger vs shooting a .40 S&W (similar sized weapons)."

I'll leave that juicy tidbit as further fodder for the Great Caliber Debate, but I want to go back to the statistic itself for a minute, because I've seen very little written on this anywhere else.

LEO’s miss between 70 – 80 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident.

Consider this fact, provided by the FBI, in light of the arguments we hear from some every time we suggest that teachers be allowed to carry to protect their students in schools, or every time we propose eliminating "no-guns" victim zones and point out that the vast majority of active killers attack places where guns are banned.

The objections usually run along the lines of "the last thing we need is more bullets flying around in these places, hitting innocent bystanders." They of course agree that people with guns need to respond when an active killer attacks, but they claim victims should be forced to wait and wait and wait until the police can arrive, because only they, with their "superior training," can be trusted to bring guns into the "no-guns" zone to stop the attack.

But, thanks to the FBI, we see that when the law enforcement officers arrive, there is a 70-80% chance that the shots they fire will miss their targets.

The reasons for this shot placement inaccuracy were addressed in an article published on BuckeyeFirearms.org earlier this year, entitled "The difference between "qualification" and "training."

For police officers in Ohio (and similarly nationwide), the OPOTA certification requires as low as a 25 round test, again shot at static targets. In fact, according to nationwide studies, an overwhelming majority of officers fire an average of less than 100 rounds per year in practice and qualification. Due to budget cuts in departments across the nation, training is the first thing to be cut and qualification requirements have consistently been reduced and shortened. For example, Ohio revamped their Carbine rifle OPOTA qualifications recently and the new test does not involve any shooting behind cover or shooting and moving. The test consists of positional fire at a static target from 15 feet out to 150 feet. It was later amended to ease requirements on the 150 foot section because many departments do not have access to a 150 foot range to qualify on. All too often qualification requirements and training needs are reduced due to budgetary concerns, lack of ammunition availability, lack of training facilities, etc.

An NYPD officer, who had a military background and therefore had a stronger perspective on training, commented on this to the New York Times following an investigation into police involved shootings:

"One officer, who joined the force with a military background and spoke anonymously because he feared reprisals, said the problem was training. The department has 'a factory line' approach to weapons training in which officers 'get the basics — breathing, trigger control,' but not much else, he said. 'It’s very brief, minimal. Firearms training is important — it’s very important,' the officer concluded. 'And it’s something that is not taken seriously.'"

Given the very low frequency that officers train/practice and the low standards of qualifications, and as Varg Freeborn, the writer of the article quoted above, goes on to observe, it's no wonder why the FBI police-involved shooting statistics reveal officers’ accuracy nationwide is so low.

Forcing victims to wait for the police in an active killer situation out of a false belief that only law enforcement are proficient enough to engage the killer is not an acceptable solution. The responding officers may not have any better chance at hitting the suspect(s) with effective fire than any other armed civilian, and the end result of such policies is only to have given the killer much more time with which to carry out his heinous crime.

It is high time that the Ohio General Assembly restore Ohioans' right to bear arms for self-defense in the many "no-guns" victims zones.

Substitute HB 48, sponsored by Rep. Ron Maag (R-Lebanon) seeks to restore Ohioans' right to carry in day-care facilities (unless they post "no-guns"), private airplanes, school safety zones, and in non-secure areas of police stations and airports.

The subsitute bill also contains "opt-in" language which would allow authorities governing college campuses and certain government buildings the ability to allow concealed carry.

Republican leaders have not allowed the bill, which passed out of committee on a 9-2 vote back in June, to come to the floor for a vote.

Please use our "Action Center" tool to contact your State Representative today and demand that Sub. HB 48 be brought to a vote, passed and sent to the Senate for consideration.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.