Training For You

Jim Watson said:

How much training do you think I need?

Click to expand...

I think your training should be commensurate with your needs, and only you can (or should be required to) define those needs.

The same basic idea goes for everyone else.

Since I get the impression you're interested in addressing the concept of training on a larger scale, I have long maintained that fundamental firearms training should be provided by public schools. By "fundamental firearms training" I mean conveying the sort of very basic knowledge that can distinguish handguns from long guns, semiautomatic from fully automatic, shotguns from rifles... etc. Pretty mundane stuff that many people nevertheless get totally wrong every single day. Who can blame them? They never learned!

Without such fundamental knowledge, most people derive their knowledge from movies and TV and that's bad on so many levels. That ignorance manifests in poorly written legislation we all have to live with.

Of course that idea never gets any traction, because it's far more important for public schools to provide basic sex education... right?

I taught concealed carry in two different states,Ok. and Ks., and they both had state mandated content required for the training. Some of that content was basic firearm handling,safety and use. They also required a range session and shooting for a minimum score to pass. In Ks. we were required to cover a rather long winded section on the legal use of deadly force.
Most of my students in both states were experienced shooters. If there were new shooters I, or the other instructor, would spend some extra time on the basics before and on the range.

When considering a complete novice regarding firearms, who now wants to carry concealed for protection, here are some of my thoughts:

Safety: Knowledge of how common types of firearms function. Knowing how to handle, carry and store firearms in a safe manner. Understanding how ammunition works, how bullets travel, and how they do damage.

Legality: Use of lethal force, and limits of it being justifiable. Potential consequences for violations such as displaying or brandishing, discharging a firearm inside city limits, carrying where not legal, etc. An understanding of liability for all shots that miss the intended target.

Practical Assessment: A display of competency and basic accuracy with a live firearm.

We as gun enthusiasts have knowledge and ability above that of the novice. But when I consider what I want my fellow citizens to know and understand about firearms before carrying one in public, what I have written above seems fair. I would prefer people not be dangerous due to ignorance and/or arrogance.

ETA: I didn't take a CCW course for my permit qualification. I took an NRA Basic Handgun Course. I feel like the CCW course should include all that I had, and much more. But from my wife's account of her CCW course, it was somewhat lacking in certain areas.

Great topic gents! I am not a proponent of mandatory training even if it may be a good idea for many people who carry guns. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and "Constitutional Carry" States don't seem to have any more problems than "shall-issue" States with strict training requirements. I have been a NRA Pistol Instructor for more than 30 years and have trained 1000s of shooters both new and with some prior experience. What I observe is that it is a wise man who knows what he doesn't know! The guys at my gun club who really need some professional training will never take a class. How many people with a driver's license go for "Hazardous Conditions" or "Defensive Driving" training? Only SMART people get more than the bare minimum of training. I do get the occasional active duty LEO who wants to improve his or her skills--usually after an incident that causes them to question the efficacy of their training. Again--Smart People! Most just don't want to spend the time or money for training they might never need. Having had to deal with State mandated gun training in New York State, I am of the opinion that this is really designed to act as a discouragement or obstacle for the law abiding public to exercise their right to carry or even possess a firearm.

If you give the gun grabbers the sop that training is required then we're done.

Training requirements will be impossible for the common man to fulfill.

I can see it now,

1. 250 hours of training. Cost per hour, $200, payable in advance. Application fee to apply for training, $5000. Please include preschool, grade school, middle school, high school and college transcripts, proof of liability insurance, sign off of local police, county sheriff, state police, and Speaker of the House of Representatives.
2. Training will be held twice per year. Class size will be limited to 25 persons. Class 1 will be held in Point Barrow Alaska, starting in January. Class 2 will be held in Death Valley, starting in July.
3. There will be 150 separate points of instruction. Failure of any point will result in expulsion from class and forfeiture of all fees. A minimum passing grade is 95%.
4. Meals, lodging, and travel are the responsibility of the person being trained.
5. You must use OUR firearm and ammunition, cost of these items are not include in class fees. Course of fire is 10,000 rounds, cost of ammunition is $5 per round. Firearm rental cost is $10,000

My suggestion (not a legal mandate) but what I would say to someone who wants to carry.

1. Basic handgun course - how they work, how to shoot reasonably, safety.
2. A two day 'tactical' course that includes legal aspects, paper target 'tactical' scenarios and some well scripted FOF.
3. A two day handgun techniques course - shooting well, accurately, malfunctions, off hand.

Then, practice and try some competition such as USPSA or IDPA.

Not going near the legal mandate issue. I've done much more training as I like it and I compete a great deal because I like it. My list is just what I would suggest to a new person in the game. I understand it can cost a buck.

You can't start training too early!
I'd had three guns pass through my hands at an age where most kids were just starting to read.
Luckily, I was already reading on the fourth grade level by that time and was fascinated by the American Civil War, which included a good bit of information on safe and proper gun handling... .

Jim Watson said:

How much training do you think I need?

Click to expand...

This is a really complex question.

I carried a gun for 10 years before I ever took a class. Was that the right thing to do? I don't know. It's irrelevant. We didn't have an indoor range until about three or four years ago, and there were no classes offered in my area.

Then my state decided to offer an enhanced permit. Our standard permit is very easy to get if you can pass a background check, and there is no class. However the enhanced permit offers much better reciprocity, requires about 8-10 hours based on the number of questions, and a shooting test. Personally, I feel the 2A really makes such required classes an infringement of my rights. However that is a federal legal standing, and I don't believe it says anywhere that local government can't require additional restrictions, right or wrong. So I put that aside and just accept it. It's not like the class or the permit is an enormous burden financially.

When I think back to when I first started carrying, I probably should have taken a class because I was new to handguns. When I took the class finally it was so basic that honestly I was bored out of my mind for about 8 out of the 10 hour class.

However, there are a lot of people I've met who own and carry guns, and are not terribly well educated on the subject or of the local laws.

Like I said, I don't think there is that big of a burden to having to take a single class for an enhanced permit, but that's speaking in today's terms. If liberals tried to impose additional nation wide training, I'd be upset, because I could see them setting ridiculous prices to intentionally limit us.

I wish there was a pretest you could take and if you scored high enough, you pay for that test, and the marksmanship test, and you're done.

Edit: I totally forgot that I've actually taken two classes. I took one for the Utah non-resident permit. However it is no more accepted than my state's enhanced permit, and since my Utah permit expires this year, I'm just going to let that one drop.

If a state is going to require training for a concealed carry license, I have no problem with some basic education. I was a Hunter Safety instructor in NYS for a number of years, and was glad for the opportunity to give young people wanting to hunt some basic safety education. I was one of a team of instructors and after my first couple of classes, it fell to me to handle the firearms handling portion of the class.

NY State's "may issue" pistol license is obscene. That said, I found the requisite training worthwhile; it was fairly short, focused, and well delivered ... at least in Onondaga County. It majored in safe gun handling, touched on some legal basics, and covered the responsibilities of carrying concealed. I have lots of objections to NY's licensing requirements, but the training was not objectionable.

I have since gone through required CCW training for Utah (I lived in PA and got a non-resident permit) and Texas. PA doesn't require training. Both the UT and TX training were fair; too little good information spread inefficiently over too much required time. The shooting qual in TX was fun--not required for UT.

I think one should be able to do a worthwhile class in four hours. Cover the following:

• Functional differences between revolvers, semi-automatics, other
• Safe handling, emphasize the four rules
• Techniques for carrying concealed, emphasize quality holsters
• Brief summary of relevant law: when is lethal force justified, etc.
• Range qualification, emphasis on safe gun handling

That's it. More training would be great. I have taken multiple courses from Mas Ayoob, Insights Training, Storm Mountain, etc. All good. But more than should be required for a license.

As a matter of principle, I am opposed to mandatory training. That leads down the slope of making the requirements so onerous as to be a defacto curtailing of ownership or possession.

However:

I have seen enough abysmal gun handling that I think training should be mainstream. Every gradeschooler should be able to recite Cooper's Four Rules. Even something that simple would be a major change in what is now the seclusion of training into some dark corner where only "gun people" seek it out. While training is readily available in "our world", the outside world is barely even aware that such facilities and programs exist.

Bottom line, you need enough training to meet your needs. You need enough training to have an honest evaluation of your skill set. But that should be driven by your own sense of responsibility, not a legal requirement.

The guy agonizing about how much training to take is probably not the one needing additional training. Conversely, the one needing training is the one who is not concerned about training.

I have trained side by side with more SWAT teams than I have fingers and toes. Counter terrorism teams and military units from another pair of hands. It is a surreal experience training on room clearing techniques with GSG-9. Who were kind enough to speak in English for us American folk. I have taken and passed POST firearms certification, twice, with a perfect score. I taught gun safety and marksmanship as a college student to over 300 other students. It is true that you don't know something until you teach it to someone else.

Even with all that trigger time, I consider what I have done adequate. But not enough. I have never competed in an official IDPA or other handgun match, just matches thrown together as an instructor to test myself. I am comfortable in my abilities, but have the wisdom to know I can be better. What I always told my students, train until you cannot get it wrong. Then train some more just because.

When I was going through the academy, the pistol instructor asked the class a couple of questions "Why do we train so hard? Why don't we just shoot a box of ammo and call it good?" We all looked at each other and thought for second before he answered "It is because the only solution for liability is training." Training is a very good thing. Forced training before exercising a constitutional right is a problem, and could well end up being the poll tax 2.0.

There should be NO MANDATORY training requirements to own, use, or carry a firearm. You are granted the right to bear arms the moment of conception ( yes let's make the jokes now). However I do believe one should make it a habit to train and practice with said weapon they choose to utilize. There are schools that teach everything from hand to hand combat all the way to long distance shooting at 8 miles away with (insert Uber rifle caliber) available to John Q. Citizen. Most people that are serious about SD will go out and get the training they desire, others buy a shotgun and leave it in the closet hoping for the best and never thinking about the worst let alone preparing for it. Sometimes it works sometimes it dont. YMMV

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

You are granted the right to bear arms the moment of conception ... YMMV

Click to expand...

If we agree that the right to life—hence the right to defend it—is self evident, granted by that life's Creator, therefore not subject to question, AND if it has been accepted that the right to an education is also a human right (as it has been, by a number of international human rights organizations), then I can't fathom why basic, fundamental mandatory firearms education is NOT already implemented in public schools, at least in the US.

v35 said:

If we agree that the right to life—hence the right to defend it—is self evident, granted by that life's Creator, therefore not subject to question, AND if it has been accepted that the right to an education is also a human right (as it has been, by a number of international human rights organizations), then I can't fathom why basic, fundamental mandatory firearms education is NOT already implemented in public schools, at least in the US.

Click to expand...

Closest we ever got was "farm safety day" where they talked about the Eddie eagle sorts of firearm rules. I agree it would be nice and probably destigmatizing for actual course material to be presented to kids.

v35 said:

If we agree that the right to life—hence the right to defend it—is self evident, granted by that life's Creator, therefore not subject to question, AND if it has been accepted that the right to an education is also a human right (as it has been, by a number of international human rights organizations), then I can't fathom why basic, fundamental mandatory firearms education is NOT already implemented in public schools, at least in the US.

Click to expand...

Some schools in rural areas do teach it but it's a low percentage of our schools, very low .. I for one do not believe it's the schools responsibility or place to teach weapons safety they can barely handle basic education why would I let them handle dangerous weapons education that should be at the parents/guardians discretion. We need more parental involvement with our youth not less.

This subject is very similar for a lot of folks to OC. "I respect your right to but you really shouldn't", or in this case "you really should".

I dont think there should be any mandatory requirements to carry a gun but I would certainly advise doing something.

That could mean a basic firearms course or the most tactical of tacticalist programs out there. Or you could get involved in some type of competition shooting.

I shoot 5 IDPA matches a month, run dry fire drills 2-3 times a week and live fire at least once during the week at home, and still consider myself intermediate in terms of skill.


Theres always more to learn and anyone who carries should be constantly looking for ways to improve themselves.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

There should be NO MANDATORY training requirements to own, use, or carry a firearm.

Click to expand...

So much agree, yes. Training should not be mandatory. Safe storage should not be mandatory. These are obstacles to firearm ownership. And the antis know this. If the training the state (I know some do) requires has to meet X requirement, they get to deem who can carry. If they only have 1 certified instructor who only does classes on the third full moon when it hits a Tuesday, that is less people who can legally carry. I taught hundreds of people how to shoot, free of charge. Because when you are dealing with something as deadly as firearms and as crucial as a right to defense, it rarely should have a price tag.

herrwalther said:

So much agree, yes. Training should not be mandatory. Safe storage should not be mandatory. These are obstacles to firearm ownership. And the antis know this. If the training the state (I know some do) requires has to meet X requirement, they get to deem who can carry. If they only have 1 certified instructor who only does classes on the third full moon when it hits a Tuesday, that is less people who can legally carry. I taught hundreds of people how to shoot, free of charge. Because when you are dealing with something as deadly as firearms and as crucial as a right to defense, it rarely should have a price tag.

Click to expand...

I teach when I can. I stress that I am not an expert or a full time trainer in these things. I teach how to use the basics of the weapon type they have or they learn on mine to get the gist of what they think they may want to use. Although it's typically free I do ask that they pitch in for ammo and range fees which I feel is fair

The question is, what is enough?
Those CCW - Hunter Safety classes?
Should the private citizen be required to train up to POST qualification? To SWAT qualification?
Are at least some of the mandatory training advocates trying to push requirements beyond the time and budget of the American Commoner?

How much training do you think I need? How much training do you think I should be required to take? How often should I have to retrain/qualify? (I think LEOSA requires annual qualification for retired cops.)

Click to expand...

Enough for who? What are your risks? Insurance companies have models for such.

CCW, in my State it’s pass or fail, no middle ground or score kept.

“Hunter Safety” is only needed to hunt for younger people, that might lbe old people now but it’s not for “everyone”.

I’d like to play with the SWAT guys at their level, I was a firearms transport guy for an agency that was doing a campaign for FN a few years ago and it was pretty neat what Dallas SWAT could do with a water bottle and a tad of explosive. Guess they put them to use since then. When they play gun games they generally get beat pretty handily by civilians though. Our club hosted the first NRA Police match and they had rules that were in the direction of how they were trained to shoot vs how many gun games are played.

The amount of training depends on what abilities you need to attain. A “button pusher” will require somewhat less training/skills than someone that needs more skills.

I have a couple of friends that are LEO instructors and what they see everyday scares me, for them. It seems that it’s not an uncommon occurrence where the sidearm hasn’t been touched, outside the holster, since the last qualifying session. Your not going to be proficient in any activity without practice.

Then again, they point out that despite the “news”, needing a firearm or actually using one is minuscule, in that profession.

I imagine there are lots of folks like me that have above normal firearm handling skills that will likely never utilize them in a self defense situation. Doesn’t stop us from trying to get better or learn something new.

Once the basics of SAFE gun handling are learned one just needs to not get complacent about them.